Key scholars

F.H. Bradley (Ethical Naturalism)

• moral truths about the world can be proved

• therefore moral language can be factual

• ethical terms can be defined using empirical knowledge/sense experience

G.E. Moore (intuitionism)

• we know what yellow is and can recognise but not define it - in the same way, we know what ‘good’ is but can’t actually define it

• moral judgements cannot be proven but that doesn’t make them untrue

H.A. Prichard (intuitionism)

• intuitive knowledge of moral terms were ‘direct knowledge by rational insight’

• tried to give a reason to account for moral disagreements and how they could be resolved: when our opinions clash we can intuit our primary duty 

• two different types of thinking:

  • reason: collects information and facts 

  • intuition: decides what to do based on the information available 

W.D. Ross (intuitionism)

• agreed we cannot define moral terms 

• believed our intuition works based on seven prima facie duties, known intrinsically (and are self-evident) 

A.J. Ayer (emotivism)

• ethical statements are non-natural

• teach us nothing about the natural world 

• ethical statements ‘are calculated to arouse feelings and to stimulate action’ 

C.L. Stevenson (emotivism) 

• all ethical language seeks to express a person’s attitude or belief about something + approval/disapproval 

• when a person expresses their moral beliefs they are trying to get someone to agree with them