However, with all theories come some disadvantages. G.E Moore stressed the main disadvantage of this theory. In his book he argued that factual and ethical statements were completely different and should not be considered the same. For example, ‘Hitler was an evil man’ and ‘Hitler is dead’ are two completely different statements. One is ethical and the other is factual. ‘Hitler is dead’ is a factual statement as there can be no further questions regarding the statement. However, the statement ‘Hitler was an evil man’ cannot be justified by evidence of his cruelty towards others, as one may question,’ he was cruel to others but is cruelty evil?’
He also talks about his open and closed question. This when a question answer itself. For example, ‘ Bryan has a sister, but is she female?’ now a sister is a female sibling and therefore the question ‘but is she female?’ is already answered. Therefore this question is a closed question as it is answered already. An open question on the other hand does not answer the question, for example, ‘I hate chocolate, but do you?’ this is a question which does not have an answer within it and so it is open for more answers. Another great disadvantage with this theory is that because the statements are opinions and most of them are verified by opinions, it could be right/good one day and wrong/bad the next.
As a result of his critiscim towards ethical naturalists, Moore comes up with his own moral theory, Ethical Non-naturalism. Moore states that we cannot describe what ‘good’ is and so how can we decide what id\s good and what is not. He compares the simplicity of the word good with the colour yellow. He says that the difficulty we experience trying to describe yellow, is the same difficulty that we would encounter when trying to describe ‘good’. He simply declares that moral facts can be known by experience and the exercise of our own reason. I.e., stealing is bad, killing is wrong, etc.
Ethical non-naturalism, or intuitionism, as it known, is more of an immediate, direct and personal form of knowledge. For example, if you were walking by a river and you heard a small boy calling for help in the river, and you were a good swimmer, would you jump in and save him because it is a good thing to do? Yes, you probably would you’re your action would be could as the result would be that you saved a boy’s life. However in the same situation, you were someone who could not swim very well, would you jump in at the possibility that you may end up drowning yourself. As the outcome of your actions may not be a very good one, this is not a ‘good’ thing to do. Moore’s conclusion:
‘If I am asked ‘what is good?’ my answer is good is good, and that is the end of the matter.’
Good can also be determined by emotion. This is where Ethical non-cognitivism (emotivism) comes in. emotivism is when a moral judgement is expressed in a statement. For example, ‘Hitler was an evil man’ is someone’s judgment saying I don’t like him. In short, emotivism is someone’s statement being simply based on emotions, and purely reflecting on the feelings of the person saying it. In addition an ethical statement gives us know knowledge, as it is a personal theory. The English philosopher, A.J Ayer states that their function is purely emotive. He also comes up with the ‘Boo, Hurrah’ theory, i.e., Mary thinks stealing is wrong, Tyler thinks stealing is right, in another words they are saying boo for stealing and hurrah for stealing. An emotive statement is an expression of approval or disapproval.
