WJEC/Eduqas RS for A2/Yr2: Religion and Ethics (DRAFT)

T1 Ethical Thought

The extent to which the different meta-ethical theories encourage moral debate One line of argument could be that Emotivism definitely discourages moral debate, as disagreement is not about ‘rightness’ ‘or ‘wrongness’ but about different emotional stances. The only debate you can have is about facts (defined via Logical Positivism), not the moral positions that are apparently based upon these facts. In other words, whilst it may appear that a debate is actually taking place it is no more than an exchange of emotions and is not a meaningful debate. Emotivism tends to reduce ethical debate to a very basic level according to this line of thinking. In addition, it could be argued that Intuitionism discourages moral discussion as it says morality is known intuitively. There can never be an explanation of why we should act morally as we always know that we ought to. The key to Prichard’s Intuitionism is that it is moral thinking that determines the outcome and not general reasoning. Therefore, we are technically encouraged not to engage too much in debate. Nevertheless, in response to this, Prichard does consider it necessary to consider all ‘claims’ and ‘preliminaries’ before confirming (through Descartes’ skeptical doubt) that our intuition was the correct recognition of duty. Since, intuitive thinking does develop and need a mature approach of thought it could be argued that, in fact, Intuitionism according to Prichard does encourage moral debate. For those who follow absolutist and objective approaches to ethics (i.e. Intuitionism, Divine Command theory, etc.), there is no point of having dialogue with the natural and social sciences. This is because added insights cannot change one’s moral stance. However, again, quite to the contrary, there is the whole debate about the application of Natural Moral Law, for example, the principle of Double Effect and indeed the position taken by Revisionists such as those who are linked with Proportionalism. This whole area has been a minefield as the great depth and breadth of Roman Catholic moral theology will attest to over the past 50 years. Key quote There is no particular Socratic or Dimechian or Kantian way to live your life. They don’t offer ethical codes and standards by which to live your life. (Stephen Fry) The various approaches that align with Naturalist ethics can certainly encourage debate since they encourage observation and measurement – you can debate the validity of the observations and the measurements (i.e. is activity X causing more pleasure than pain?’). Utilitarianism is the classic example for encouraging engagement with social and political issues, both of which have an underlying ethical basis. The greatest happiness principle and the principle of universalisability are pertinent examples in relation to law and democracy. Even Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus is relevant to how Utilitarianism developed through ethical debate and created Act and Rule versions. Also, it is the whole purpose of moral debate according to Stevenson’s version of Emotivism. Indeed, Emotivism explains why people do engage in debate about morality for persuasion and affirmation of attitudes. Indeed, Emotivism itself, as a theory, has encouraged much debate about morality as it is so extremely reductive! It provokes discussion about the essence of ethics as few other approaches can. Also, if we follow Ayer’s Emotivism then it does not address why many feel that whether or not the basis of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is established, ethical debate is not just about emotions but also to do with a process of reasoning using evidence to support an argument. It can be acknowledged that the outcome of the argument may be explained as personal opinion but the argument itself is still important. Indeed, how is that any different to Prichard’s intuitionism? Therefore, to suggest

DRAFT

AO2 Activity As you read through this section try to do the following: 1. Pick out the different lines of argument that are presented in the text and identify any evidence given in support. 2. For each line of argument try to evaluate whether or not you think this is strong or weak. 3. Think of any questions you may wish to raise in response to the arguments. This Activity will help you to start thinking critically about what you read and help you to evaluate the effectiveness of different arguments and from this develop your own observations, opinions and points of view that will help with any conclusions that you make in your answers to the AO2 questions that arise.

63