Examine different ways in which ‘good’ is used in Meta Ethics Essay

In the modern degrading cab aret we live in today, people ar constantly questioning the highly debatable topic of chastes. We would like to pretend that we are trying our hardest to strive to do what is right in society to provoke us decent people. barely it is hard to do what is intelligent when there are so more antithetic representations of delineate the inwardness of genuine itself.There are three main types of ethics, Descriptive, prescriptive and Meta ethics. Descriptive ethics presents the f act ass in the way people live and how they make object lesson choices in vitality. It simply states the facts with break through making any moral view of in force(p) or unfavorable. Prescriptive ethics states the norm near what is right or wrong by examining the choices and the reasons behind the issues. It places how we should live or be oblige setting standards for any unrivaled to live by. This is the most widely utilise category of honest language when debati ng morality. Meta ethics is a philosophical analysis of variant war crys utilise in ethical language. It closely examines the sound bys themselves and their genius meaning in different contexts.The subject of Meta ethics is to intimately regard the moral language to be able to reach a crack understanding of its meaning. Without the humpledge and intense understanding of the language we use in moral debates, we faecesnot reason our points successfully or be able to amount to any logical destruction. Therefore it is vit on the wholey necessary that we de bournine the meaning of the words we use so we disregard successfully eat up government agency in these ethical discussions.The most important ethical circumstance, which unfortunately is so loosely used in society, is the term thoroughly. We frequently project of a concert being level-headed or that person is a advantageously person or it is veracious to be peaceful. But when we so casu onlyy use the term reli able do we literall(a)y k presently what we are implying? What does the term good mean in itself? Surely we should all be able to instantly provide an answer to this question because we all use the term good on a regular basis. However we name that when posed with this question, many are not sure themselves of the kernel meaning of the word.In this essay I shall be examining the intensity of the ethical term good and what people mean when they forge something to be good of bad. We postulate to decide in fact, if it is actually possible to set the word good at all or does it depend exclusively on the situation, having a slightly different meaning in every different context.The meaning of the term good is not necessarily something that we all naturally agree on. There are many factors that affect the reasons wherefore we perceive the meaning of good to be what it is. Some examples of this include the sources of our determine and morals, how we are brought up and the way our c onscience plays a part in our every day lives. Naturally everyone may see different situations to be different degrees of good or bad in their opinion.A blusher concept leading to the understanding of something being good is Definism. This idea is that we need to condition accurately what we mean by the term good out front we deal peculiar(prenominal)ally distinguish if something is good or bad. Once we have classified the meaning of good we bear hence accordingly stress every situation or act against it. When we have identified the meat of the term in itself we can grasp the ideas and understandings behind it. However many ask, can the term good universally be defined? We shall now look at the different ship canal society tries to identify the word good.There are two main ways of defining a moral act, these being infinite and relative scathe. Absolute moral terms are when something is perceived as always being good or right regardless of the situation or the facts invol ved. This is in any case cognise as an objective term, it is completely independent of all conditions to determine its moral chastity. All absolute moral terms are know universally as always being correct regardless. For example, many argue that Peace give always be good along with happiness. These terms should apply to everyone in society in every situation because they will always be right and striving to reach them can neer be wrong.Relative terms are the direct opposite of absolute terms. When something is relative, it altogether depends on the specific situation it is in. It is also dependent on peoples personal opinions. Everyone views situations in their own way, which is slightly different to everyone else. It all relies on what you count it to be in your own unmarried opinion. The term good therefore can only be obdurate in its particular context. This is also known as Subjectiveness, for example mercy killing or fighting for a cause you believe in are two example s of relative situations of doing a good thing.There are several(prenominal) theories we can look at in which the term good is used in Meta ethics. The first of these is the utilitarian supposition of good. According to this possible action, a term is determined as being good pending the results of a specific moral act. For example, if we were in the situation where we had to kill one person to relieve the lives of thousands of others then this would be seen as good. This is because although the sacrifice of one flavor is not good in itself alone, because it justs the lives of many more it is seen as the greater good because it is the lesser of two evils. The results of killing one person to save many are frequently greater than the act of killing one in the first place. The evil of killing one is cancelled out by the good of saving so many others. Therefore the utilitarian theory of good can be measured by what it achieves.another(prenominal) important theory is that of Natur al law. The term good is used in this part of Meta ethics according to how well something touchs its purpose. The key philosopher that brought this idea into ethical recognition was Aristotle in ancient Greece many years ago. He believed that everything quick has a natural purpose in life in which it is aiming towards as its ultimate goal. This means that the level of goodness something is, is measured by how much a particular act contri exceptes to the ultimate purpose the object has. If it helps to perform this purpose then it is a morally good act, however if it makes it harder to fulfil its purpose then it is considered bad.This idea of Natural law lead on to the development of Christian theology, especially by the greatly look up to philosopher St Thomas Aquinas who linked Aristotles ideas with Christianity. In religion, the term good is related to what God would or wouldnt approve of. If God saw a certain act as acceptable or if it fulfill a command from him from a reli gious Holy Book then it would be seen as good. For example devoting time to worship him would be seen as good but committing adultery would be seen as bad in Gods eyes. The ultimate good example in Christianity is Jesus whose life was seen to be morally good because everything he did was approved of by God. He was perfect and therefore Christians today try to follow in his footsteps and do as he did.Goodness is unlike any other forest and the ultimate aim for all living things according to many people. Something can therefore be determined as good because it is anomalous, individual and supreme. We can detect this by the simple skill of human intuition because the goodness is self-evident. This approach is known as Intuitionism or Ethical non-naturalism. Because it is a unique feature, it is very dependent on different situations or circumstances. The term good will therefore have an individual meaning for different acts that will only apply to that one situation and could have a totally different meaning in another circumstance. We can also determine good because intuition tells us the results it has are beneficial to others or ourselves. However, change surface though the consequences may benefit and be good, it is impossible to define the word from an intuitional point of view because it is always changing depending on the factors involved.G E Moore is the most famous example of an Intuitionist. He claimed the term good was incapable of definition because it is simple and has no parts. He believed as well as that the term had a different meaning that changed depending the circumstances or different situations the word is used. He likened this to a cavalry, they have many properties and qualities that make a horse a horse but if you reduce a horse to its simplest terms, you can not define these terms.The phrase good will have a certain meaning not only for different situations but also for different people. Many people can observe an act but they may d issent as to whether the act was good or not depending on their conscience and opinion. Intuitionism means it has a distinct meaning for you. G E Moore gave the example of the colour yellow, we cannot define a colour, we may be able to give examples of things that are yellow but to give an actual definition of yellow is quite impossible. He believed that we should judge the goodness of an put through based on its results, aiming to maximise good in the world. He was a strong intuitionist, which involved the belief that within us we have a moral faculty which reveals moral truth to us, showing us what was morally good.Another focal area of Meta ethics, which involves language, is Emotivism or ethical non-Cognitivism. Emotivism is sometimes viewed as merely the expression of feelings of the verbalizer. They can be seen more as commands or rules the utterers wants its audience to follow. These feelings are the opinions of the loudspeaker system saying what they believe to be right or wrong and are dependent on a matter of taste. The term good is accordingly defined depending on what the speaker believes to be right. They state a moral preference of what they do or do not approve of and not the core meaning itself.The preferences of the speaker therefore, try to influence the opinions of the audience. They are not concerned with the moral statements themselves or their meaning but more focused on the purpose of the statement. The speaker indents on promoting a response from the audience relating to what is right or wrong.This theory is also known as the Boo and Hooray theory which can be seen as offensive because it is seen to reduce morality to simple cheers or boos. It is called this because when listening to a point of view, the audience simply shouts hooray to say something is good or that they approve of it or boo if they disagree and think it is morally bad. However one problem with this theory is that in a modern society, we do not irrationally act mer ely on our feelings and emotions alone. We use logical thinking and reasoning too and this therefore must be included.Prescriptivism solved this problem by apply reason to determine goodness. R M Hare who attempt to examine what was actually happening when a person was making a moral statement took the best example of this approach. He tried to find out what was it meant to do and if moral statements had a purpose. This type of Meta ethics tries to inflict a course of action that is recommended. . For example, the speaker may say To be considered a good person, we should try our hardest to help those less fortunate than ourselves. By saying this he is expressing what a good person is and also is suggesting a course of action we should take, i.e. helping others.As a result of this way of talking, the speaker is very opinionated and thus forcing an action as a result of his beliefs. The speaker is giving advice that applies to all situations at any given over time regardless of o ther factors. It is Universable and therefore applies to all people in every situation. The theory of Universability is a general idea that can be applied to past, present and future and to all other people.In conclusion we can see that there are many different ways in which the term good is used in Meta ethics. In Intuitionism it is used to describe moral principles that are self evidently right. In Emotivism, when we say something is good, it is what we see as being right according to out emotions and feelings. Prescriptivism on the other hand uses reason and logic to determine what is good. Utilitarianists perceive something to be good pending the results that follow the action. How we determine what is good or bad to ourselves, greatly depends on which ethical view we take to situations as a result of our opinion. There is no one definition for what is good and so it is down to us to decide which one we believe to be right and then try to live our lives accordingly.