morality

Evaluate the view that utilitarianism provides the best approach to sexual ethics. [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

Utilitarianism is a teleological and consequentialist ethical theory that judges the morality of actions by their outcomes rather than their intentions or inherent nature. Its guiding principle is the principle of utility, which holds that an action is morally right if it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The theory was first developed by Jeremy Bentham, who understood happiness in quantitative terms as pleasure and the absence of pain, and later refined by John Stuart Mill, who distinguished between higher and lower pleasures. Utilitarianism exists in different forms, most notably Act Utilitarianism, which assesses individual actions case by case, and Rule Utilitarianism, which follows general rules that tend to maximise overall happiness. Because utilitarianism is flexible, non-religious and outcome-focused, it is often seen as attractive in debates about sexual ethics. However, utilitarianism does not provide the best approach to sexual ethics, because it relies on unreliable predictions, subjective assessments of pleasure, and can justify abuse and serious injustice.

One significant reason why utilitarianism is not the best approach to sexual ethics is the problem of prediction and the subjectivity involved in estimating pleasure and pain. Bentham’s hedonic calculus attempts to measure pleasure using factors such as intensity, duration and extent, but in practice these factors are extremely difficult to apply to real sexual relationships. Sexual decisions often involve long-term emotional consequences that cannot be accurately predicted at the time. Peter Singer identifies the problem of prediction as the most serious difficulty with utilitarianism and the reason why he has moved further and further towards strong-rule utilitarianism and away from act utilitarianism over time. Furthermore, Bernard Williams argues that utilitarianism fails to take personal integrity seriously, reducing deeply personal decisions to impersonal calculations. In sexual ethics, where emotions, vulnerability and power dynamics are central, this reduction is particularly problematic. Pleasure itself is highly subjective, and what appears pleasurable may later be experienced as harmful or exploitative. This shows that utilitarianism lacks the precision and sensitivity required for ethical sexual decision-making, weakening its claim to be the best approach.

A further weakness is that utilitarianism risks legitimising sexual abuse and exploitation, particularly where the happiness of many outweighs the suffering of a few. John Rawls famously criticised utilitarianism for permitting injustice if it maximises overall happiness, arguing that it fails to respect individuals as separate moral persons. In sexual ethics, this is a serious flaw. Practices such as exploitative pornography, prostitution or coercive relationships could be justified if they produce pleasure for a large number of people, despite causing significant harm to a minority. Feminist scholars such as Catharine MacKinnon argue that focusing on pleasure alone ignores structural power imbalances, particularly between men and women, and normalises sexual harm. Utilitarianism lacks a clear mechanism to protect vulnerable individuals from being sacrificed for collective enjoyment. As a result, it fails to uphold key ethical values such as dignity, autonomy and justice, all of which are essential in sexual ethics.

An even more serious criticism is the problem of mob-rule, where act utilitarianism could justify morally abhorrent acts if they maximise overall pleasure. In theory, acts such as gang rape or child prostitution could be deemed morally acceptable if the pleasure of the majority outweighed the suffering of the victim. While utilitarians such as J.S. Mill hoped that higher pleasures and long-term consequences would prevent such outcomes, critics argue that this is not guaranteed by the theory itself. James Rachels points out that act utilitarianism has no absolute moral boundaries, meaning that nothing is inherently wrong. In sexual ethics, this is unacceptable, as certain acts—especially those involving coercion or lack of consent—are widely regarded as absolutely wrong regardless of consequences. A moral theory that cannot clearly and consistently condemn such actions cannot plausibly be considered the best approach to sexual ethics.

However, a strong counterclaim is that absolutist ethical theories are incompatible with modern, multicultural societies. Postmodern thinkers such as Jean-François Lyotard argue that there are no universal moral “metanarratives,” and many people adopt relativist views about sexual morality. From this perspective, utilitarianism appears more suitable because it avoids rigid rules and allows individuals and societies to weigh harm and benefit in context. Supporters may argue that traditional sexual absolutes fail to reflect diverse sexual identities, relationships and cultural values, whereas utilitarianism is flexible and inclusive. Despite this, there are some moral principles in sexual ethics that command near-universal agreement, even within pluralistic societies. One such principle is the absolute wrongness of sexual abuse, particularly in cases lacking informed consent. Philosophers such as Alan Wertheimer emphasise that exploitation occurs when one party takes unfair advantage of another’s vulnerability, regardless of overall pleasure produced. Consent functions as a moral threshold rather than a variable to be weighed. Utilitarianism treats consent as one factor among many, whereas many ethical frameworks see it as non-negotiable. This suggests that some absolute principles are not only compatible with modern society but essential to protecting the vulnerable. Therefore, the relativist objection does not successfully defend utilitarianism as the best approach to sexual ethics.

In conclusion, utilitarianism does not provide the best approach to sexual ethics. The strongest reason for this is that it can justify exploitation and abuse by prioritising overall pleasure over individual rights, dignity and consent. Its reliance on subjective calculations and its vulnerability to mob-rule make it ethically dangerous in such a sensitive area. While utilitarianism has value in encouraging consideration of harm and wellbeing, it must be limited by firm moral boundaries. Rule utilitarianism offers greater protection than act utilitarianism, but even this is insufficient without absolute commitments to consent and the intrinsic worth of persons. Ultimately, sexual ethics should be grounded not in calculations of pleasure, but in respect, justice and the protection of the vulnerable—principles that utilitarianism alone cannot adequately secure.

“In situation ethics, moral decision-making is entirely individualistic and subjective.” Discuss [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

Situation ethics is a teleological and relativist ethical theory most fully developed by Joseph Fletcher in the 1960s, which argues that moral decision-making should be guided not by absolute rules but by agape—selfless, unconditional love. While other situational approaches exist, such as those proposed by William Temple and John A. T. Robinson, this essay will focus specifically on Fletcher’s formulation. In Situation Ethics (1966), Fletcher rejects both legalism (strict adherence to moral laws, such as Natural Law or Divine Command Theory) and antinomianism (the rejection of all moral constraints, associated with thinkers like Søren Kierkegaard), proposing instead a middle way where principles guide but do not determine action. However, despite Fletcher’s intention to avoid complete relativism by grounding ethics in agape, this essay will argue that his approach ultimately renders moral decision-making highly individualistic and subjective, because it depends on personal judgement in both defining and applying love within each situation.

Firstly, Fletcher’s rejection of absolute moral laws clearly demonstrates the individualistic nature of situation ethics. By reducing traditional moral rules to contingent “rules of thumb,” Fletcher allows individuals to override them whenever they conflict with agape. His four working principles—pragmatism, relativism, positivism, and personalism—prioritise flexibility and personal engagement with moral dilemmas. For example, relativism explicitly denies that moral norms are fixed, with Fletcher insisting that “the situationist avoids words like ‘never’ and ‘always’.” This rejection of universality is reinforced by his use of case studies such as the “honey trap” and the bombing of Hiroshima, where he invites individuals to determine the most loving course of action for themselves rather than prescribing a single correct response. This approach is attractive in that it avoids the moral rigidity of systems like Natural Law, allowing agents to respond compassionately in exceptional circumstances, such as lying to protect innocent life. However, as John A. T. Robinson later recognised, such freedom risks descending into “moral chaos” without firm boundaries. The absence of binding rules means that moral authority rests entirely with the individual, reinforcing the claim that situation ethics is fundamentally individualistic.

Secondly, this individualism leads directly to subjectivity, as Fletcher’s system relies on each person interpreting and applying agape for themselves. Fletcher defines agape in broadly utilitarian terms as the maximisation of love or wellbeing for those involved, claiming that “only the end justifies the means.” However, this raises immediate difficulties, as there is no universally agreed definition of what constitutes “the most loving” outcome. Different individuals may prioritise different aspects of wellbeing—emotional, physical, spiritual—or even different groups of people. For instance, Fletcher’s focus on the immediate situation, as seen in the case of Mrs Bergmeier, arguably neglects wider social consequences, such as the long-term impact of undermining moral norms. Critics such as William Barclay argue that if love is the only law, then “each man has to decide what love means,” inevitably leading to conflicting conclusions. This subjectivity can be seen as a strength, allowing moral agents to act compassionately in complex and tragic circumstances where rigid rules would produce inhumane outcomes. Nevertheless, it also creates inconsistency and unpredictability, as two equally sincere individuals may justify entirely opposite actions as “loving.” Therefore, Fletcher’s reliance on personal interpretation ensures that moral decision-making is not only individualistic but also deeply subjective.

However, it could be argued that situation ethics is not entirely subjective because it is grounded in the objective and universal principle of agape, which provides a consistent moral standard. Fletcher insists that agape is not a matter of personal preference but a rational principle rooted in Christian teaching, exemplified by the command to “love your neighbour.” His six fundamental principles are intended to give structure to moral reasoning, emphasising that love is intrinsically good, that it is the ruling norm, and that justice is love distributed. From this perspective, situation ethics could be seen as objective, since all moral agents are aiming at the same end. Yet this defence ultimately fails. While agape may be universal in theory, Fletcher provides no clear method for calculating or measuring love in practice, leaving its application open to interpretation. The six principles are highly abstract and offer little concrete guidance when principles conflict or when consequences are uncertain. As a result, the supposed objectivity of agape collapses into subjectivity at the point of application. Two individuals may both sincerely aim to act in accordance with agape yet arrive at incompatible conclusions, undermining the claim that situation ethics provides a stable moral standard. Therefore, even this counterargument reinforces the view that moral decision-making within situation ethics remains fundamentally subjective.

In conclusion, Fletcher’s situation ethics ultimately renders moral decision-making both individualistic and subjective. Although it aspires to ground ethical reasoning in the universal principle of agape, its rejection of absolute moral laws and reliance on personal judgement mean that individuals must determine for themselves what love requires in each situation. The strongest support for this view lies in the absence of any clear or consistent method for applying agape, which leads to divergent and potentially conflicting moral conclusions. While this flexibility allows situation ethics to respond sensitively to complex moral dilemmas, it also undermines its reliability as a moral framework. Therefore, situation ethics is best understood not as a true middle way between legalism and antinomianism, but as a system that ultimately collapses into subjectivity. Ethical theories going forward should seek to preserve Fletcher’s emphasis on compassion while also incorporating clearer moral boundaries to ensure consistency and coherence in moral decision-making.

The amount of pleasure produced is the only factor determining whether a sexual act is right. Discuss [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

The central issue concerns what is meant by pleasure, and crucially, whose pleasure is considered in assessing the morality of sexual acts. Pleasure could be defined narrowly as physical or sensual gratification, or more broadly as psychological, emotional, or spiritual fulfilment — the flourishing of persons through mutual respect and love. Different ethical theories draw the circle of concern differently: some include only the immediate participants, while others consider the wider social and moral consequences. Utilitarianism and Natural Law both offer frameworks that could, in broad terms, agree that pleasure is relevant to moral judgment — though they interpret pleasure and goodness in distinct ways. Kantian Ethics, by contrast, challenges the idea that pleasure, or any consequence, can determine moral worth at all. This essay will argue that the amount of pleasure produced is the most important factor determining whether a sexual act is right, when pleasure is understood as contributing to human flourishing and the circle of ethical concern is drawn widely.

Utilitarianism supports the idea that the moral rightness of an action depends on the pleasure or happiness it produces, making it an ethical theory that aligns closely with the statement. Jeremy Bentham’s classical act utilitarianism defines the good in quantitative terms: the right act is that which produces “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” For Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only measures of value, so a sexual act would be right if it maximizes pleasure and minimizes harm for all affected. John Stuart Mill, developing the theory, refined this by distinguishing higher and lower pleasures — suggesting that not all pleasures are equal, and that those associated with intellect, love, and moral sentiment are superior to mere physical gratification. In evaluating sexual ethics, Bentham’s approach would justify consensual sexual relationships of any form, provided they increase overall happiness and harm no one. For instance, non-traditional sexual relationships or same-sex partnerships could be defended under utilitarian reasoning, if they lead to mutual pleasure and well-being without causing wider social or personal harm. Mill’s perspective would affirm sexual acts that express love, mutual respect, and psychological depth as contributing to higher forms of pleasure — thus aligning morality with the quality of human relationships rather than with biological function or social convention. Utilitarianism’s strength lies in its flexibility and inclusivity. It allows moral evaluation to evolve alongside human understanding of sexuality, consent, and well-being. This makes it particularly compatible with contemporary ethical discourse, which emphasizes consent, equality, and emotional health. However, critics argue that pure hedonistic utilitarianism risks justifying exploitative or objectifying sexual acts if they produce more pleasure overall — for example, if the pain of a few is outweighed by the pleasure of many. Mill’s qualitative refinement addresses this by grounding moral pleasure in human dignity and rationality, not mere sensation. While utilitarianism’s focus on pleasure aligns strongly with the essay’s claim, it must be understood in Mill’s enriched sense — as contributing to overall human flourishing. If pleasure is interpreted this way, utilitarianism demonstrates that the amount of pleasure produced is the most important factor in determining whether a sexual act is right, if pleasure includes psychological and relational well-being, and is balanced against potential harm. Thus, utilitarianism supports the thesis when pleasure is defined broadly and the moral circle includes all those affected — showing that pleasure, properly understood, remains central to moral judgment in sexual ethics.

Natural Law, though seemingly at odds with a hedonistic view, can also support the claim when pleasure is defined as the flourishing of human beings through the fulfilment of their natural purposes. Thomas Aquinas’ Natural Law theory holds that moral acts are those that align with the purposes (telos) built into human nature by God. The primary precepts — including the preservation of life, reproduction, and the nurturing of social order — guide moral reasoning. Sexual acts, in this view, are good when they contribute to both procreation and the union of persons in mutual love. While pleasure is not the ultimate good, it is a secondary good — a natural consequence of rightly ordered sexual relations that foster human flourishing. Aquinas explicitly acknowledges that sexual pleasure is not sinful in itself; rather, it becomes wrong when detached from its rightful context — marriage and the potential for procreation and unity. For example, within marriage, sexual pleasure strengthens the bond between spouses and encourages familial stability, fulfilling both biological and relational purposes. Modern Natural Law theorists such as John Finnis reinterpret these ideas less biologically and more relationally, focusing on “friendship” and “marital good” as intrinsic goods that promote the flourishing of persons. When pleasure is seen as a sign of human flourishing rather than mere sensation, Natural Law aligns with the view that pleasure is a moral indicator. A sexual act that is selfish, manipulative, or contrary to the integrity of the person fails to promote true pleasure, as it undermines the good of the participants. Thus, Natural Law and utilitarianism converge when the concept of pleasure is widened from bodily gratification to holistic well-being. Yet, some critics might object that Natural Law’s restrictive stance on non-procreative sex limits the scope of legitimate pleasure, potentially excluding many consensual and loving relationships that do promote flourishing. Despite these limits, the Natural Law approach supports the thesis insofar as it recognizes pleasure as a natural component of right sexual acts — evidence of human flourishing when ordered toward love and unity. When “pleasure” is thus redefined in line with human purpose, it becomes a key measure of moral goodness. Therefore, in Natural Law as in utilitarianism, pleasure remains a vital moral factor — not as mere hedonism, but as an expression of ordered human flourishing. When this is the definition applied, pleasure is indeed the most important factor in determining the rightness of a sexual act.

By contrast, Kantian Ethics fundamentally rejects the idea that pleasure — or any consequence at all — can determine the moral rightness of an action. Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics insists that moral acts must be done from duty, in accordance with the command of reason (known as the categorical imperative), rather than from inclination or desire. The Formula of Humanity states that one should “act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or another, always as an end and never merely as a means.” Sexual acts motivated by pleasure risk reducing a person to a means of satisfaction rather than respecting them as an autonomous moral agent. For Kant, sexuality presents a moral danger precisely because it tempts individuals to objectify others. In his Lectures on Ethics, he describes sexual desire as one that “makes of the loved person an object of appetite,” comparing them to a lemon that has been squeezed and then thrown away. Thus, even consensual sexual pleasure must, for Kant, be morally constrained by the institution of marriage, where reciprocal respect and mutual obligation can preserve personhood. However, Kant also acknowledged the problem with ignoring pleasure as a moral factor when he accepted that human beings naturally seek to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. It is not rational to ask people to act against their own natures, so the categorical imperative must include the desire to establish a “kingdom of ends” in which people will be happy and flourish. In his late essay Towards Perpetual Peace, Kant rooted his ethic in the concept of the Summum Bonum — the highest good — in which virtue and happiness ultimately coincide. While he warned that people should not be directly motivated by the desire to produce the Summum Bonum, the hope that it will be realised through rational duty gives moral action its final coherence. It follows that the likelihood of a sexual act contributing to the Summum Bonum, when measured by its consistency with reason and the categorical imperative, is the only factor determining whether it is right, even for Kant. Though Kant explicitly warned against using sex merely for pleasure, his challenge ultimately reinforces rather than undermines the thesis: when pleasure is redefined as the flourishing of persons in respectful, rational relationships, it remains central to moral rightness.

In conclusion, the amount of pleasure produced is indeed the most important factor determining whether a sexual act is right, but only when pleasure is defined in terms of human flourishing and the circle of ethical concern is drawn widely. Both Utilitarianism and Natural Law demonstrate that pleasure — understood as psychological, relational, and moral well-being — is integral to assessing sexual ethics. Although Kantian Ethics reminds us to respect human dignity and resist treating others merely as means, this very respect deepens our understanding of pleasure as shared flourishing rather than selfish gratification. The best reason to adopt this integrated view is that it unites emotion and reason, acknowledging pleasure not as the enemy of morality but as its expression in human happiness.

We all know the difference between right and wrong; it is just common sense. Critically assess this claim. [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

While it is easy to understand why somebody might say that we all know the difference between right and wrong, because most people do and because in general what is right causes most people to be happy and what is wrong causes suffering, the fact that some criminals either aren’t aware of their actions being wrong or don’t care suggests that this claim is not sound. 

Firstly, while St Thomas Aquinas did argue that we all have a God-given desire for the good and to avoid evil (Conscientia, the Primary Precept of Natural Law) he argued that we need to learn how to put this desire into practice by developing our Synderesis (what Aristotle called Practical Reason). Superficially it might seem that inherently wrong actions serve one or more of the basic human goods of natural law.  For example, killing my enemy might seem like it promotes peace and harmony in society.  Nevertheless, it also goes against the basic human good of life, so I must learn that killing can never be right, even when it affects an unpopular troublemaker!  When people do evil things, argues Aquinas, it is usually because they are pursuing an apparent and not a real good and this because their synderesis has not been properly formed.  For Aquinas then, it is not fair to say that we all have clear knowledge of the difference between right and wrong or that this is “just common sense”.  While we have good instincts for morality, we need to learn what is right and what is wrong and it is not always the way these seem superficially. 

Secondly, Immanuel Kant argued that the moral law appeals to peoples’ reason as a synthetic a priori, suggesting that we all have a knowledge of good and evil regardless of our experience in the world.  Nevertheless, he was at pains to explain how what is right is not always what makes people happy or seems instinctively to be the correct course of action.  Take, for example, Kant’s famous axe-murderer example from the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785).  Kant argued that it is right to tell the truth, even though we suspect that this will lead to the death of a friend, rather than tell what seems to be a white lie to save a life.  This is far from being common-sense!  For Kant though, reason shows us that if we can’t universalise the maxim of lying and would be using the suspected axe-murderer as a means to an end of saving our friend then what we do would be irrational and wrong.  The moral law is a categorical imperative and will not allow us to make decisions situationally, but demands consistent rational action. This shows that while we all have the ability to know the difference between right and wrong, this is not just common sense but requires deep thought and analysis. 

On the other hand, utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham argue that “nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters; the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain” meaning that maximising pleasure is natural to human beings, which implies both that everybody knows the difference between right and wrong and that this could reasonably be described as “common sense.”  Yet this is not convincing because there is a gap between our instinct to pursue our own pleasure and knowing that we should maximise human pleasure in general.  Hume pointed out the is-ought gap in logic that affects Bentham’s reasoning and GE Moore dismissed classical Utilitarianism for relying on the Naturalistic Fallacy as well as for reducing goodness to what causes pleasure in a way that he felt to be far too simplistic.  Moore pointed out that it makes sense to ask if an instance of pleasure is good, as well as whether pleasure is good per se, which shows that pleasure is not in fact good in itself.  This means that many people might not know the difference between right and wrong by a utilitarian definition. Out instinct to maximise pleasure is not the same as a natural knowledge of the difference between right and wrong and the utilitarian moral imperative – to sacrifice our own interests when this would make more people happy – does not seem to be “common sense” to everybody! 

Further, drawing on Platonism GE Moore argued that all people recognise goodness when they see it, although goodness itself is indefinable. This is quite appealing because it explains why many people see fruitlessly altruistic actions – like a soldier getting blown up disobeying orders in trying to save an injured comrade – as good when this can’t be explained by other means. Yet, it is a stretch to say that everybody knows that such actions are good or that it is “common sense” when there is such a diversity of opinion and disagreement about this sort of issue.  While scholars like CS Lewis and Alastair MacIntyre were right to point out that some values and virtues are admired across ages and cultural boundaries, not all values and virtues are and certainly not by everybody.  If they were, there wouldn’t be any cultural disagreements over issues like polygamy and FGM and neither would there be any crime.  Wittgenstein’s approach of seeing meaning and truth depending on the rules of a “language game” and varying over time and between contexts makes best sense of the diversity that exists in the moral sphere, despite some basic agreement over the value of human life. This approach also casts doubt on both the claim that everybody knows the difference between right and wrong and the claim that such is “common sense”… because what is right and what is wrong depend on context and is neither objective, nor universal.

It seems that Hume’s sentimentalism or even AJ Ayer’s emotivism best explain why some people admire fruitless altruistic actions while others condemn them. By Hume’s analysis, our moral values represent our sentimental reactions to actions.  Surely, most people are repelled by murder, but this does not mean that there is something “wrong” about murder that can be “known,” only that many people share feelings about an action which often causes suffering. Further, by Ayer’s analysis, moral claims have no factual significance but are expressions of emotions and feelings in much the same way as hooray or boo might be.  Again, they don’t make ontological claims about actions, but only express approval or disapproval.  JL Mackie agreed with Ayer, arguing that moral values are “queer” in not belonging to any category of existence and that moral claims are based on errors.  For Hume, Ayer and Mackie, the difference between right and wrong is not something that can be “known” at all…. only felt.  The feeling that murder is wrong might appear to be based on “common sense” but this would apply only if “common sense” refers to popular opinion rather than the universal knowledge suggested by the wording of the title.  As RM Hare suggested, people might be prescribing actions when they say things like “murder is wrong”, rather than making a claim about murder itself, suggesting that a claim like murder is wrong has meaning while lacking factual significance. Yet, the fact that as CL Stevenson observed, moral claims are difficult to analyse and might in fact be doing a lot of different things suggests that it is wrong to say that everybody has knowledge of right and wrong, let alone that these are matters of “common sense”. 

In conclusion, while the claim that “we all know the difference between right and wrong; it is just common sense” is superficially attractive, it cannot withstand deeper critical analysis. For ethical realists, the claim goes well beyond what most would suggest.  For most ethical naturalists the knowledge of good and evil, while open to everybody, demands deeper analysis and study to attain.  Similarly, for most non-naturalists a priori knowledge of right and wrong goes beyond common sense and demands deeper thought.  While GE Moore did argue that it makes no sense to keep asking what goodness is because it is indefinable, an intuition… and we either recognise it or we don’t, even for him – the author of a famous essay called “Common Sense” (1905) knowledge of the difference between right and wrong is not the sort of gut reaction that this phrase might often suggest.  Also, for ethical non-realists the difference between right and wrong is neither something that has factual significance and can be “known” nor something that is agreed on in the way that “common sense” might suggest. 

In meta-ethics, the term “good” has an objective factual basis. Discuss [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

In meta-ethics, in the past most scholars have held that the term “good” has an objective factual basis. Moral realists include ethical monotheists, who see the term good referring to God and God’s commands, as well as ethical naturalists, who see the term good referring to some quality that can be observed, and ethical non-naturalists, who see the term good referring to a rational intuition. On the other hand, since the early part of the 20th Century moral non-realism has come to dominate.  For example, non-realists like AJ Ayer and JL Mackie argue that the term “good” has no objective factual basis because it does not refer to a verifiable point of reference but rather expresses subjective feelings and emotions.  Overall, today the claim that the term “good” has an objective factual basis is not persuasive.

Firstly, ethical monotheists claim that the term “good” has an objective factual basis in God and God’s commands.  The Bible claims that “only God is truly good” Mark 10:18 and this is supported by both Classical Theism and Theistic Personalism, which have in different ways established that God is the omnibenevolent creator and the source of goodness in human actions. Further, at least for Protestant Christians, faith is Sola Scriptura and the Bible is a comprehensive moral guide, which suggests that what is good depends on God’s commands, which can be checked against the Bible, objectively.  Nevertheless, ethical monotheism is not credible.  Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma shows that if God is the source of moral standards, as ethical monotheism suggests, then God cannot be good but is an arbitrary tyrant.  On the other hand, if in fact there are objective moral standards that God follows, he can be good but is not the origin of goodness as ethical monotheists suggest, and neither is He all-powerful.  Bertrand Russell found the Euthyphro Dilemma so persuasive that he used it as the basis for a disproof of God. Further, centuries of Church history demonstrate the problems with the ethical monotheist claim that the term “good” has an objective factual basis, when Christians so rarely agree on what it is or involves. Biblical Criticism shows that God’s commandments are not clear from the Bible, existing in different sometimes contradictory lists, being obviously influenced by the contexts of the biblical authors and being wide open to interpretation.  For example, the ten commandments are detailed in Exodus 20 and Exodus 34 and again in Deuteronomy 5.  The versions are phrased and organized differently, and the order of the coveting commandments is different between Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.  Further, Jesus said that the two greatest commandments were love God and love of neighbour in Mark 12 and also that love was the only commandment in John 13.  Which commandments should a Christian follow and with what priority?  Further, the Commandments have always been interpreted differently by different Christians.  For example, Catholics and Lutherans combine the first two commandments, “no other gods” and “no graven images” while other Protestant Christians separate the first two commandments, making “no graven images” a separate commandment and leading to radically different attitudes to art and architecture even within Protestantism.  These examples show how ethical monotheism and its claim that the term “good” has an objective factual basis is not credible.

Secondly, ethical naturalists claim that the term “good” has an objective factual basis which can be observed.  For example, the utilitarian Jeremy Bentham argued that “nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters; the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain”, reasoning that “good” refers to actions which produce the maximum amount of pleasure, which can be observed and measured using the seven criteria of extent, duration, intensity, certainty, propinquity, purity and fecundity, as well as the minimum amount of pain.  However, ethical naturalism is undermined by the is-ought gap, which Hume explained thus “in every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it’s necessary that it should be observed and explained; and while a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.”  Hume’s point was that we can observe nature and what is, but we can’t observe any basis for ought claims at all.  Ethical naturalism is based on assertion and not argument and has no observable factual basis for what it claims to be good. Further and despite being a moral realist and thinking that the term “good” has an objective factual basis, G.E Moore claimed that ethical naturalism relies on the “naturalistic fallacy”, the incorrect assumption that something is good because it occurs in nature or is considered normal in society.  For Moore, just because something is natural or normal does not make it good.  For example, misogyny and sexual violence have been endemic through history and still are across the world today… this does not make these good or right.  This shows that the claim that the term good has an objective factual basis cannot b supported through ethical naturalism either.

On the other hand, G.E Moore and other ethical non-naturalists have conceded that what is good depends neither on the commands of God nor on anything that can be observed in nature.  Instead, drawing on Plato, they have argued that we know what is good as a rational intuition.  This explains why people find some actions which go against laws and don’t maximise happiness are good… such as a soldier disobeying orders and getting himself killed while trying to save a comrade.  Nevertheless, ethical non-naturalism is no more persuasive a basis for the claim that the term “good” has an objective factual basis than ethical monotheism or ethical naturalism.  The claim that we all know what goodness is as a rational intuition ignores the fact that people have widely different concepts of what is good.  Actions like that of the soldier are controversial… yes, some people would see him as a hero and say that his actions were “good” despite breaking the rules and compounding suffering… but many would reject this and argue that he should have obeyed orders and lived. Further, AJ Ayer was right to point out that claims about good, bad, right and wrong are better seen as expressions of subjective feelings and emotions, having no objective factual basis, than as having an objective basis in a rational intuition that we can’t observe or prove. Ayer’s argument develops that of Hume, that while we can observe what is, claims about what we ought to do are pure assertion and not verifiable.  Further, JL Mackie later agreed with Ayer, pointing out that ethical claims are based on an error and that moral judgments in fact “reflect adherence to and participation in different ways of life.”  Here Mackie was influenced by Wittgenstein, who had cast doubt on the ability of any term to have an “objective factual basis” arguing that meaning in language comes from usage and not reference so that it is not objective or factual. All these points suggest that ethical non-naturalism fails to provide any better defence of the claim that terms like “good” have an objective factual basis than ethical monotheism and ethical naturalism and that in fact ethical non-realism is more persuasive in its suggestion that terms like “good” have only a subjective basis.

In conclusion, the term “good” has no objective factual basis but is rather subjective and best understood as an expression of personal or communal feelings and emotions.  Today, ethical realism lacks credibility, so attention should be focused on refining ethical non-realism to provide the best possible explanation for how and why people use ethical language.