Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification. This seems a fairly logical conclusion, in order to justify what we do we look at it in basic terms, but such a process could not take place indefinitely without coming to a base truth which could not be broken down further. It’s the classic “it just is” situation in an argument, where the statement cannot be further simplified nor justified. The problem however is agreeing on what these basic moral truths are. Moore and WD Ross a fellow intuitionist agreed that pleasure, knowledge and virtue are all intrinsically good, and pain, ignorance and vice are intrinsically bad.
While Ethical Naturalists believe it holds great importance as it can convey facts and help us to understand ethical theories, there are those who strongly disagree with this. For example Intuitionists, such as Moore, believe that our intuition is more useful when wanting to know how to act morally than knowing the definitions of ethical terms. Although Non-Cognitive theories disagree with the factual content of ethical statements, it is clear that they still see some significance in ethical language. However rather than seeing it as facts, they accept that morality is subjective and suggest that the importance of ethical language is provided by the emotions conveyed in the phrases used. Perhaps more so than Emotivists, Prescriptivists see ethical language as fairly meaningful.
The answer to this question will vary. Some people are moral realists and hold that moral facts are objective facts that are out there in the world, these people believe that things are good or bad independently of us. Moral values such as goodness and badness are real properties of people in the same way that rough and smooth are properties of physical objects. This view is often referred to as cognitive language. Those who oppose cognitivists are called non cognitivists and they believe that when someone makes a moral statement they are not describing the world, but they are merely expressing their feelings and opinions, they believe that moral statements are not objective therefore they cannot be verified as true or false.
Actions are then just if they sustain or are consonant with such harmony. Such a conception of individual justice is virtue ethical because it ties justice (acting justly) to an internal state of the person rather than to (adherence to) social norms or to good consequences; but Plato's view is also quite radical because it at least initially leaves it an open question whether the just individual refrains from such socially proscribed actions as lying, killing, and stealing. Plato eventually seeks to show that someone with a healthy, harmonious soul wouldn't lie, kill, or steal, but most commentators consider his argument to that effect to be highly deficient. Aristotle is generally regarded as a virtue ethicist par excellence, but his account of justice as a virtue is less purely virtue ethical than Plato's because it anchors individual justice in situational factors that are largely external to the just individual. Situations and communities are just, according to Aristotle, when individuals receive benefits according to their merits, or virtue: those most
How far is virtue ethics a satisfactory guide to moral behaviour? Virtue ethics is person rather than action based as it looks at the virtue or moral character of the person carrying out an action, rather than at ethical duties and rules, or the consequences of particular actions, unlike Utilitarianism or Situation ethics, which always look at the consequence of the action. Virtue Ethics was a theory first developed by Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC), Eudaimonia, or 'happiness', is the supreme goal of human life. Aristotle believed that everything has a purpose, Eudaimonia is the purpose for humans. Aristotle draws a distinction between superior and subordinate aims, believing Eudaimonia' is the end goal or purpose behind everything we do as people, and is desired for its own sake and therefore a superior aim.
Furthermore it emphasises the need for people to break bad habits of character, as they prevent one from achieving full happiness and being a moral person. Such bad habits are greed and anger, and these are referred to as vices and in order to be a good person, we must stay away from these vices. The origins of this theory date at least back to Plato and Aristotle. Although modern virtue ethics does not have to take the form known as "neo-Aristotelian", almost any modern version still shows that its roots are in ancient Greek philosophy by the employment of three concepts derived from it. These are arete (excellence or virtue) phronesis (practical or moral wisdom) and eudaimonia (usually translated as happiness or flourishing.)
Furthermore, if God had said the opposite to what He did say then the things that would have been good is now bad. This makes the moral codes seem subjective. For some philosophers, morality cannot depend on authority alone. However, there are also clear problems. If humans obey God’s moral commands simply because they fear punishment, they are acting in a moral fashion purely to serve God rather than morally.
What is Wisdom, Really? In The Apology of Socrates, the way the Athenians sees “human wisdom” and the type of “wisdom” Socrates talks about, proves to be two completely different things, which becomes a problem. In fact, the type of “wisdom” that Socrates possesses is not the “wisdom”, that he has a reputation for by people of Athens. The reputation that Socrates has been given by the people is that he is a “wise man” that actually knows something. Actually, when Socrates talks about “human wisdom”, what he really means is recognizing and admitting one’s ignorance about not knowing, rather than one claiming to know.
“Outline Aristotle’s theory of Virtue Ethics” Virtue Ethics originates from the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle who focused not on deontological values of actions being intrinsically right or wrong based on their intention, but on how to develop one’s character to meet the demands of what one would describe as virtuous. Central to the theory is the idea of practising qualities and virtues that are established as ‘good’. Virtue ethics is agent-centred as opposed to act-centred and Aristotle maintains that our final aim, as human beings, is to achieve ultimate happiness, which he calls eudaimonia and describes as human flourishing. The Greek word for virtue, arête, means excellence, and so a virtuous character is one with excellent qualities who continually and undeniably continue to make perfect moral decisions. A virtue is defined as a perfect quality that is habitually carried out by an individual which requires practise and dedication so that one may blossom into a virtuous character, “excellence is not an act but a habit.” For Aristotle, something is ‘good’ if it fulfils its purpose: a good knife is one this is sharps and cuts well.
Moral Relativism&Plato’s Euthyphro The idea that the truth is relative is that what is true for me is true for me and what is true for you is true for you. For instance person one believes in the existence of god. Person two believes there is no god at all. If the truth were relative that would mean Person one’s reality is that god exisitses and person two’s reality is that god does not exist. Both of them would be right because the truth is relative to what they believe.