“Compare and Contrast intuitionism and Emotivism” Both Intuitionism and Emotivism are meta-ethical concepts to explain the terms “good” and “bad” without being caught in the naturalistic fallacy described by GE Moore. Moore’s theory states that good cannot be categorised in any physical manner as theories – but instead “good” can not be defined in terms of anything but itself, and following this through to a moral theory we can conclude “that neither science nor religion can establish the basic principles of morality.” Intuitionism holds that there are objective moral truths, but rather than reasoning or deducing these truths, they are self evident to the “mature” mind. Moore contends that just as we know there is a world out there, we know objective moral truths – they are just common sense or intuition. These truths are universal and beyond human experience and reasoning, and from them we gain our sense of what is “good” and what is “bad”. 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.
The Naturalistic Fallacy is one of the main criticisms of Ethical Naturalism and would therefore suggest that ethical language is meaningless as it cannot be correctly defined, given that one cannot derive any moral statements from natural facts. Moore believed there are moral properties, so ethical language is not completely devoid of meaning but it is limited as ‘good’ is a non-natural property which cannot be
G.E Moore argued against Ethical Naturalism as he believed that defining concepts such as ‘good’ are impossible and any attempt to define ‘good’ is to commit The Naturalistic Fallacy. The Naturalistic Fallacy is one of the main criticisms of Ethical Naturalism and would therefore suggest that ethical language is not very meaningful as it cannot be correctly defined. Moore believed there are moral properties, so ethical language is not completely devoid of meaning but it is limited as ‘good’ is a non-natural property which cannot be defined. Moore disagreed that ethical language could prove whether something is moral or
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.
* What are the legal requirements? * Didn’t break any laws, related to him applying company funds towards personal use even though his act was solely beneficial to himself alone. What are the ethical duties? * Maintain price-competitive markets will ensure that scares resources are used to optimally satisfy consumer needs. * Pareto Optimality wasn’t obtained because maximum benefits of most wanted goods and services produced at minimum cost of least wanted resources.
EST1 Task 1 A. Evaluate Company Q's current attitude toward social responsibility. The company’s current attitude toward social responsibility isn’t responsible at all. The fact that they are willing to allow food to be threw away that could be given to a food bank illustrates the company’s unethical approach to social responsibility. Placing profits above people isn’t socially responsible but is rather sociopathic and a microcosm of the larger problem that entails the current Capitalistic system that is used across the world.
When the government prevents prices from adjusting naturally to supply and demand, efficiency is improved in the economy. ANSWER: F TYPE: T KEY1: D SECTION: 2 OBJECTIVE: 7 RANDOM: Y [cxviii]. A market economy cannot possibly produce a socially desirable outcome because individuals are motivated by their own selfish interests. ANSWER: F TYPE: T KEY1: D SECTION: 2 OBJECTIVE: 7 RANDOM: Y [cxix]. While the invisible hand cannot guarantee efficiency, it is better at guaranteeing equity.
Working towards our moral sensibilities will reflect the fact that there is no distinction between dutiful acts and supererogatory acts. Supererogatory acts are something that is nice to do for others yet we are not obligated to do
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
Charity is not an obligation, “giving aid would be a good thing to do but it would not be wrong not to do it” (Gilabert, 2007). In Singer’s eyes, these “traditional moral categories are upset” (Singer, 1972). Spending money on frivolous items when others are suffering and we have the means to satisfy or own needs and the needs of our dependents is in the eyes of Singer to be wrong (Singer, 1972). It is not an act of charity to donate money to those suffering from lack of shelter, food, and medicine it is in fact a duty that many are ignoring (Singer, 1972). The distinction between duty and charity seem to blur closer together for him than what has been traditionally set by society.