Ethical terms as objective and meaningful

What does it mean if ethical language is claimed to be objective and meaningful?

It means that terms like 'good', 'bad', 'right', and 'wrong' describe real facts.

What does the broad agreement on moral values suggest about morality?

It suggests that morality cannot just be a matter of personal opinion.

What is one counterargument to the claim that shared moral values indicate moral realism?

There is significant cultural variation in morality, suggesting a lack of consensus on issues.

What is the implication of moral progress for ethical language?

It implies that there must be real right and wrong to measure moral progress against.

What would happen if there is no objective right and wrong according to the argument about standards?

There would be no absolute standards, meaning values like rights and fairness could be just as subjective as hatred and racism.

What challenge does Hume pose to naturalism?

He identifies a gap between factual statements ('is') and value judgements ('ought').

What is the naturalistic fallacy according to Moore?

It is the fallacy of claiming that pleasure is inherently good.

How does intuitionism differ from naturalism regarding moral values?

Intuitionism presents morality as objective without basing it on empirical facts.

What difficulty does intuitionism face regarding people's intuitions?

People's intuitions often differ, which challenges the objectivity of moral values.

What is H.A. Pritchard's response to the differing intuitions among people?

Pritchard suggests that some people simply have better intuitions than others.