There are two types of naturalists; Hedonic naturalists like R.B Perry who see goodness as a fact of pleasure or happiness; and Theological naturalists like Thomas Aquinas who state that goodness is linked to the will of God as seen in nature and that morals are commands defined by God, they are absolute.
Many people have criticised naturalism due to its simplistic account of moral knowledge and the fact that, outside of religious groups, it does not hold much meaning in the common world. More recent theories such as chaos theory are challenging naturalism, this means that to secure ethics/naturalism to science saying that morals can be proven leaves it vulnerable to new scientific discoveries, and the basic fact that sometimes science can be wrong, I which case it leaves may people wondering if science can be proven wrong, can morals be wrong? For example, is thinking that murder is wrong, wrong? Should we be thinking that murder is right? This can also suggest that naturalism is flawed, as it does not account for the changes in our morals over periods of time.
G.E.Moore criticised naturalism, as he believed that moral judgements are based on intuitive knowledge of good things. Moore argued that things that are essentially good couldn’t be defined or analysed, they are simply good, and good is an idea not a fact.
Intuitionism, on the other hand, rejects the idea of naturalism, and instead accepts the idea that moral facts are based on, and are a result of our own intuition. Intuitionists like Moore, believe that moral judgement cannot be proved empirically and that scientific observation and analysis cannot verify it, and also that moral judgement exists in human intuition. H.A. Prichard, another intuitionist thought that there were two kinds of thinking – intuition and reasoning and that reasoning assembled the acts concerned and that intuition determined which course of action to follow.
The main message in intuitionism is that morals are our own intuitions, that are either based upon our own experiences, or experiences shared though some other form, and that not all people clearly perceive the moral truth, as people’s morals differ, and also that our intuitions don’t all reach the same degree of moral enlightenment.
There are also criticisms with intuitionism, for instance that not everyone would agree on their intuition, past experiences may alter how they think or react in certain situations, causing them to do either the right or wrong thing. But also, nobody actually really knows what is the right or wrong thing, for example, serial killers may believe that murder is right, whereas others think it is completely wrong, people may do a completely immoral act because they believe it was an act of God, and therefore it must be good as God is good, so human morals differ from person to person. Also, intuitionists have not fully explained the moral sense and so has led to confusion amongst other philosophers like G.J Warnock.
Emotivism is also known as “non-naturalism” or “logical positivism” as it rejects naturalism and the theory that morals are facts. Emotivism believes that morals do not exist and that sentiment is the source of right and wrong e.g. you help a person out of compassion or feelings, not reason or scientific fact. Emotivism also suggests that moral arguments have no real purpose because they are simply an expression of emotions.
Ayer claimed that meaningful statements had to be verified in one of two ways; synthetically e.g. using our senses (sight, smell, touch, hearing and taste); or analytically e.g. analytic facts are true by definition e.g. all bachelors are male and single. Ayer stated that religious belief isn’t meaningful, and he often used the “Hoorah/Boo theory” to state his theory. The Hoorah/Bo theory is simply saying hoorah for a good thing, e.g. giving to charity is good – Hoorah, and Boo for a bad thing, e.g. murder is wrong – Boo.
James Rachels criticised the emotive theory of ethics as he thinks there is much more to moral statements than an expression of feeling, and he believes that moral judgements appeal to reasons, just as any judgement appeals to reasons. Rachels rejects emotivism as he believes moral judgements require reasons or else they are arbitrary. Others would say that emotivism does not have many followers, as it is simply a discussion of opinions, whether it’s a discussion or a shouting match of views. The fact that Ayer tried to explain that morals and facts are meaningless is a contradiction of himself, because isn’t what he is saying simply an expression of his own opinion, with no evidence to support it? Others also reject Ayer’s theory as they think their moral beliefs come from a whole variety of sources that validate their views and that to say something is purely an emotive response undermines the depth and explanation of people’s feelings.
Prescriptivism is the last major meta-ethics theory, and seeks to make moral statements objective. R.M. Hare thought that morals were both prescriptive and universal, and the only coherent way to behave morally was to act on judgements that you’re prepared to universalise. He believed that moral statements did more than describe behaviour or express attitudes, and said that they had a “prescriptive” quality due to there commanding behaviour which guided our actions, they are to guide choices. Prescriptivism is trying to enlighten people, or even enforce your own opinion and way of thinking onto people, and to make them come round to that way of thinking.
However, some reject the idea that morals are universal, and that your own ideas and needs are different to everyone else’s so the Golden Rule “Do unto others as you would have done to yourself” is incorrect as you and another person will have different objectives and thoughts. Also different situations will require another way of thinking, and a different solution, so the moral rules for a similar situation may differ. R.M. Hare’s expansion of prescriptivism, submits a distinct alternative to traditional normative ethics.
