Ethical terms as objective and meaningful

In suggesting that ethical language may be objective and meaningful, we are claiming that our language is describing real facts when we use the terms good', 'bad', 'right' and wrong. This page shows some of the arguments for and against naturalism and intuitionism - two theories that would support this view.

Arguing for and against moral facts (moral realism)

The following arguments apply to both naturalism and intuitionism.

• Shared moral values: Supporters of moral realism point to the broad agreement on moral values. Almost everyone would argue that torture, rape or unprovoked killing is wrong. Our agreement suggests that morality cannot just be a matter of personal opinion. However, it is possible to suggest that the glass is half empty rather than half full.

There is significant cultural variation in morality, and issues, such as abortion, show that there isn't always a consensus.

• Moral progress: We have made considerable progress in our attitude to topics such as slavery and racism. This implies that our ethical language does describe real things. If there was no such thing as right and wrong then it would be impossible to talk of moral progress; progress requires a fixed end point to measure against. Without an actual right and wrong our twenty-first century attitudes are just different not better.

• The need for a standard: If there is no objective right and wrong then there can be no absolute standards. Although we currently believe in rights, tolerance and fairness, there is no reason why we couldn't change these beliefs and no reason why these values are better than hatred, racism and cannibalism. This seems a rather uncomfortable place to be but is a logical consequence if values really are a matter of opinion.

Difficulties for naturalism

In addition to the points above, there are specific difficulties for the naturalist position.

• Some naturalists rely on the idea of there being a purpose or telos built into the universe. This is challenged by various thinkers, including evolutionists and existentialists, who reject the idea of purpose (Natural Law).

• Hume identifies the gap between factual 'is' statements and value judgements 'ought' and 'ought not'. Moral judgements are primarily a matter of emotion, nothing factual can be observed that leads to ideas of right and wrong.

• Moore shows that there is a naturalistic fallacy, particularly if we claim that pleasure is good.

Arguing for and against intuitionism

The following arguments are specific to intuitionism. It is worth noting that although intuitionists see morality as absolute and objective they do not base moral values on 'facts' in the empirical sense.

• The advantage of intuitionism over naturalism is that it seems to avoid presents morality as objective.

• One difficulty with intuitionism is that people's intuitions often seem to differ. The reply to this difficulty given by one intuitionist, H.A. Pritchard, is that some people have better intuition than others. This may not seem very convincing.