Naturalism-
Moral theory that holds absolutes, and they can be observed and recognised
F. H Bradley and Phillipa Foot- believe that morals can be perceived in the world in the same way in which other features of the world are identified.

Emotivism-
Argues that moral statements simply indicate certain moral feelings, rather than directly expressing them.
Morals can be seen as relating to emotions, therefore meaning that they cannot be fixed.
C. L Stevenson- suggested that moral judgements are linked to our feelings about morals rather than them being simple emotional outbursts
An example of relativism. Added that moral statements also intend to influence the views and opinions of others. But, this ignores the rational thought behind ethics. If ethics is truly subjective, we have no right to disapprove of things- but what in the case of a neighbour abusing his girlfriend?

Intuitionism-
G. E Moore (1873- 1958)
Work= Principia Ethica (1903)
He rejected the naturalist ideal that we can see right from wrong in social order. He said that instead morality can be perceived through a different mechanism- intuition.
H. A Pritchard- defined intuit as the moral dimension
W. D Ross- accepted intuitionism, but developed the theory to justify moral duties which were based around characters

Empiricts-
believe that moral arise from human sentiment , rather than observation.
A. J Ayer, in 'Language, Truth and Logic'- claims that moral language does not have a degree of deeper meaning.
Vienna Circle of philosophers- group of logical positivists who rejected the claim that objective moral rules can be verified as true.
Ayer= an ethical non- naturalist, because he rejected the idea that morals could be seen in the natural world

Meta- ethics definition-
involves an overview of ethics and the ethical language used. Primary aim is to understand what is meant when we refer to the terms good and bad. Includes Naturalism, Intuitionism and Emotivism.
eg. With regard to the use of the phrase ‘good’, its definition changes with relation to its subject- such as ‘a good dog’ vs. ‘a good basketball player’

Ethical Naturalism- Moral statements are claims to an objective truth, and thus they can be known through scientific observation and analysis. Moral statements are known to be bad in the same way as empirical statements. ‘Killing is bad’ is the same as ‘the egg is bad’. CHALLENGED BY MOORE- challenged the movement from the way the world is to how the world ought to be. Just because we can see that giving to charity is alleviating for the poor, doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good action.

Non- Cognitivism- challenges cognitivism. Says that moral statements should be considered as subjective, such as ‘killing animals is wrong’, so they are not objectively true or false. This means they cannot be verified empirically.

Challenges that morals are absolute facts - Hume argues that moral claims are not derived from reason but rather from sentiment.

Shared in ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’- 1738. Rejected idea that moral good and evil can be distinguished from reason. Says that they are explained by the sentiment of the observer, not through their reason. Suggests that morals insite passion or excitement, with reason being impotenet/ ineffective in matters of morality

Said That rules of morality are not a result of our applying of reason- direct disagreement with Aquinas. Hume challenged that when we see something that we perceive as wrong, the ‘wrongness’ comes from our sentiment rather than from our observation

• Hume addressed that when discussing morality, writers often shift from using ‘is’ statements, which are of fact, to ‘ought/ ought not’ statements, which are prescribing what should be done. Such as a person may tell a lie, and a philosopher would react with ‘we ought not to lie’. Hume said that this creates an unjustified relationship between the words- often called HUME’S LAW

Charles R. Pidgin suggests that ‘Naturalist… resort to all sorts of supposed facts- sociological, psychological, scientific, even metaphysical or supernatural’

Foot draws on Aristotle’s observations of the natural world and how it includes a good way of doing things. Says that life has patterns of excellence, related to the function and purpose of living things. These can be applied to morality just like anything else.

1. There is a life cycle consisting of self maintenance and reproduction
2. Self maintenance and reproduction can be achieved differently in each species. This depends on how they feel themselves, their development and how they reproduce.
3. From this, certain norms can then be deduced- such as the swiftness of a deer or the night vision of an owl.
4. Upon applying these norms to individual members of the species, members can be judged to be effective or defective.An owl with poor night vision is a defective owl

Then says that there is no difference between saying a living thing has ‘good roots’ and saying that a human being has ‘good dispositions of will’. Uses the example of an oak tree, in which we would comment that its roots would be ‘good’ if they were long and deep as they would keep the tree upright. Their roots would be bad if they were weak and spindly. Therefore oaks need to have strong and long roots- if they do not there is something wrong with them.