We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Examine Different Ways In Which the Word “Good” is Used In Meta-Ethics Essay Sample

essay
  • Pages: 4
  • Word count: 1,025
  • Rewriting Possibility: 99% (excellent)
  • Category: philosophy

Get Full Essay

Get access to this section to get all help you need with your essay and educational issues.

Get Access

Introduction of TOPIC

Meta-ethics is the defining of the language used in normative ethics, like right or wrong, “good” or bad. It is “Wholly concerned with analysing the language people use when discussing any moral issue” (Vardy). Different modern empiricists have very different views on whether it is possible to define what the meaning of “”good””, and if so, what it’s meaning is.

G.E. Moore, an Intuitionist believed that “goodness” could not be defined in terms of anything else. He believed that because what is “good” cannot be proved empirically, we must use our intuition to help us know what is “good”. He would argue that we cannot understand the definition of “goodness” through intuition, or ever prove what is right or wrong in ethics. He thought that we cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”, because we cannot define what “good” is, so how can we possibly know what “ought” to be done. He had a teleological view to intuitionism, in that he believed that we can only understand what is “good” through its end effect. Other intuitionists however had very different points of view; W.D. Ross would argue that we can only act upon our intuition in any situation, because we cannot possibly know enough about any given situation to judge what the “good” thing to do would be. Furthermore he also believed that it is impossible to define what “right” or “wrong” is, so intuition is the only way to judge how to deal with any situation.

By contrast, the Logical Positivists believe that “Genuine knowledge is only that provable by science.” A.J. Ayer, a leading logical positivist would argue that anything non-empirically-provable is meaningless, or non-cognitive. A statement such as “your eyes are pretty” or “rape is wrong” is completely nonsensical, as it cannot be proved. According to him, all that we are doing by making such statements is expressing our personal approval or disapproval; saying “boo” or “hurrah”. His view on intuitionism was that it is in itself an abstract concept, completely improvable by science, and thus is non-cognitive.

So any notion of being able to tell what is “right” or “wrong” (two already meaningless statements) through intuition is, in his view, farcical. C.L. Stevenson had a similar point of view- h

e believed that moral language is non-cognitive, but we use it to convey persuasive definitions- for

Sorry, but full essay samples are available only for registered users

Choose a Membership Plan
instance, although non-consensual sex and rape have the same meaning, we use the latter to display a disgust and disapproval, it is a persuasive definition. R.M. Hare was another logical positivist, he believed in prescriptivism; that we use moral language to persuade others to believe in the same moral values as ourselves, and to follow our lead. To say that “rape is a disgusting action in which the offender is nothing more than a cowardly pervert” is not just a statement, but also an attempt to prescribe your views to other people, and thus hope they will follow your point of view and not commit rape.

Throughout meta-ethics, the word “good” is understood to be indefinable. However the main difference between intuitionism and logical positivism is that most intuitionists believe that we can do “good” through using our intuition, whereas logical positivists denounce the word “good” in the first place- stating that it is meaningless, and that in doing “good”, we are only doing what we approve of, and there is no more depth to the morality of the situation than that.

“Anything people approve of must be good.”- Discuss

This view is surprisingly widely believed. The argument for it is basically as follows- everybody tries to do good, for them, good is what they approve of, and people approve of different and contradictory things, and as we have no means of telling who is right and who is wrong, then everybody must be right; thus anything that people approve of must be good… This is the emotivist’s view, and is relatively effective in avoiding conflict, if in nothing else.

The main problem with this view is that it is simply impossible to agree to disagree on many issues. If somebody kills your mother; you are hardly going to say to him, “although I disapprove of what you did, I accept you that did what you believed in, and thus you are as right as I am”. It is simply ridiculous; because unlike logical positivism, which says that nothing is right or wrong, we just express our opinions with these words, emotivism takes it a step further by saying that everybody is right, and if you approve in what you are doing, then it is consequently “good”, regardless of what it is you are actually doing. This seems extremely flawed for it could be acceptable to believe that everybody is entitled to his or her opinion, but to state that every opinion is correct, regardless of whether they involve saving humanity or destroying the universe is extremely foolish. It is simply a way of avoiding moral dilemma’s or conflicts, and as a meta-ethical view, it creates more problems than it solves.

A societal view would be that whatever a certain culture believes is “good” is in fact good society. This statement however takes it a step further, and states that each individual person’s point of view on what is right or wrong is what that person should be judged by. Both arguments fail at the same point; whether “good” is definable or not, murder and protecting life cannot both be good. In this sense we cannot derive an “is” from an “ought”, so we can either state people’s beliefs, and leave it at that, because any further insight would be nonsensical, or we can take a normative view on whether what they are doing is right or not, but to state that everything that anybody approves of is “good” simply contradicts the foundations of meta-ethics.

We can write a custom essay on

Examine Different Ways In Which the Word “Go ...
According to Your Specific Requirements.

Order an essay

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

A Philosophical View - Do Animals Have...

Should animals be harmed to benefit mankind? This pressing question has been around for at least the past two centuries. During the early nineteenth century, animal experiments emerged as an important method of science and, in fact, marked the birth of experimental physiology and neuroscience as we currently know it. There were, however, guidelines that existed even back then which restricted the conditions of experimentation. These early rules protected the animals, in the sense that all procedures performed were done so with as little pain as possible and solely to investigate new truths. Adopting the animals' perspectives, they would probably not agree that these types of regulations were much protection, considering the unwanted pain that they felt first followed by what would ultimately be their death. But, this is exactly the ethical issue at hand. For the most part, animal rights are debated in regards to two issues: 1) whether...

A Comparison of Classic and Contemporary Philosophers

Why is it so important that young children in our society receive a good education? The answer to that question is very simple; because they are our future. The old saying "the youth of today are the leaders off tomorrow" holds more truth than many people realize. By giving children a good start at an early age we are only helping ourselves as well as the children. A good example of this is can be seen in our society. By the time a teacher in our society retires from his or her position their students will have made it out into the real world and taken jobs. This new generation will be the ones to make the decisions about laws such as Social Security, and Medicaid. The students will be able to turn these programs around and make them more beneficial to their recipients. These teachers who are now retired...

The 5 Branches of Philosophy

Healthcare is considered one of the backbones of our society and is integrated into every aspect of our lives. When talking about different areas healthcare, we can use philosophy to better understand the basic principles involved in healthcare. Philosophy can be divided into five different branches; metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics. These five branches show the different perspectives of healthcare to better understand how the related to one another. Philosophy and healthcare can be related using the example of female circumcision. While female circumcision is a practice and ritual that is very common in many societies, it is viewed on the opposite spectrum here in the United States. The use of philosophy allows an individual to see female circumcision for what it is and from a more unbiased position. Metaphysics is the study of existence, and asks the question, "What is out there? " There are probably many people...

Popular Essays

logo

Emma Taylor

online

Hi there!
Would you like to get such a paper?
How about getting a customized one?