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
In response to the option in which God creates a world with free agents and no evil, a world with no evil would mean a world with no good, so it would be impossible for God to create a free agents that only choose good, since evil does not exist. It would limit free will, and limited free will is not free will. The reason why it would be impossible for good to exist without evil existing is that we need evil to exist so that we can define it and understand what it is and how it works. After we find out that information, we could base what good is off of what evil is not, which is what we do now with
From this Moore claimed that it is impossible to derive an ‘is from an ought’. This criticism became known as the naturalistic fallacy. In addition to this G.E Moore claimed that naturalism was not able to stand up to the open question argument. ethical naturalism claims to be based on moral facts, it would therefore seem logical that these facts should stand up to scrutiny. Yet, if we observe that pleasure is good, we should be able to ask is good pleasure.
PART A: Explain Mill’s challenge to the teleological argument. (25marks) The teleological argument claims that God designed the world with a purpose. God is often described to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. Mill criticises the idea of the teleological argument, he doesn’t believe that the world is designed by a God because within nature there are cruelty and crimes that are unpunished. Mill argues that if God designed the universe he wouldn’t have created something containing any evil at all it wouldn’t fit in with his description.
Ethical statements, Ayer said, cannot be verified analytically or synthetically so the truth of such phrases is unknowable and the language used is non-cognitive. Instead, ethical propositions can be no more that the expression of an emotion which will always be personal or subjective. For example to say “Abortion is good” is to express a subjective opinion about the moral issue of Abortion. For Ayer such statements can be no more than an expression of subjective emotion – leading some to label this approach to ethical language as the “boo hooray” theory. But does this strictly subjective understanding of ethical language and statements accurately reflect what is going on when we use such language?
In the quote below Rand explains why she rejects religion outright, and she believes man himself deserves the attention: Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach. “Exaltation” is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. “Worship” means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man… But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions.
What he calls necessities, are not really a necessity for the right reasons. Krauthammer depicts a sentimental environmentalist as someone who indulges in worshiping earth to the point of idolatry. This may be the only argument that I agree with. Some environmentalists have taken a different and extreme approach on how they view and treat our earth. While I don’t agree with worshiping earth, I disagree that Krauthammar completely disregards earth due to the fact that there are natural disasters; his statements are simply not realistic.
With reference to Singer’s statement that, “… prevent evil… without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance”, in as much as the act of helping a friend who is suffering in a critical condition is morally good, in contrast, it is morally wrong to rob people at gun point. It would be sacrificing something of comparable moral significance for another. In other words, it is wrong to do a wrong action because of a right one. Singer also emphasizes the fact that you must be in the position to help. I think is a plausible idea since you cannot give what you do not have.
My criticism of this theory is that thought processes without emotions make our decisions too concrete. When we treat people in the medical field, we cannot say it is a rule that everyone must received a blood transfusion if they are below a set number because we are not thinking about the consequences of the person we are treating. Some religions believe that blood transfusions are toxic to their being and would never want to receive a transfusion, so I believe that
Moral Relativism cannot and does not accept the idea that an objective moral system exists. If it did, you could evaluate other ethical systems meaningfully. A moral relativist would ask such questions as ‘what do we mean by wrong?’ when making a decision on something deemed wrong. Relativism is in direct contrast with absolute morality that is deontological, referring to looking at the action in itself. A moral relativist would believe that there is no definite set of rules that apply universally.