Critically assess the view that the word “good” has no real meaning (35 marks)

It is helpful to identify and differentiate all three topics in order to understand them completely and thoroughly. Firstly, objectivism is a view that what is right and what is wrong does not depend on what someone thinks is right or wrong. For example, a view that the grass is green is solely factual information and does not change whether or not someone disagrees or agrees with this statement. Therefore, ethical objectivism is intrinsic. The difference between intrinsic and extrinsic is simple. If something has intrinsic value it is said to be independent of any outside belief or opinion. If something has an

Meta-ethics considers the questions of moral language. Metaethics unlike normative ethics that looks at the act or characteristic of right and wrong, it looks at right and wrong more by implications of what is the nature of good and bad. Metaethics tends to ask the questions of what are the difference

Mencius believes that the essential element of both pity and compassion. Mencius states that these two competent are the beginning of humaneness.

Emotionism according to Jesse Prinz is a set of views according to which emotions are essential to morality. There are two types of emotionism: 1). Metaphysical emotionism is moral properties are essentially related to emotions and facts without mind independence 2). Epistemic emotionism is moral concepts are essentially related to emotions. Concepts such as right or wrong are emotional states of mind. Further epistemic emotionism is divided into two categories: a). Constitutive is moral concepts are constituted by feelings and b). Dispositional is moral concepts dispose one to have certain feelings. Epistemic emotionism is basically how emotions influence moral judgements. The evidence in support of epistemic emotionism is the dumbfounding experiment. This is where moral attitudes on sex between siblings were studied for a group of young people. Most if not all said that is morally wrong to even think about it and is very inappropriate but failed to give an explanation. Another example involves cannibalism where a woman working in a medical lab cooks and eats part of meat, which was donated to the lab for research purposes. Again this is something immoral, nasty and wrong. Other examples were cheating is wrong or stealing is wrong. Both of these being moral concepts are wrong and unacceptable and they align

How does one define what is good? Is it the beauty around us, actions that one performs, or living a life without troubles? If you stopped random people on the street and asked them, “what is good?” you would probably get many different answers. Merriam-Webster gives a simple definition of good as ‘high quality’. The KJV dictionary gives the definition of good as ‘complete or sufficiently perfect in its kind’. Here we have two definitions of good, one from a worldly source and the other from a biblical source. How can we use these definitions to evaluate what good is and to prove good exists in the world today? In the Bible, Matthew 12:35 states, “A good man out of the treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things” (King James Version). Does this mean that good can only come from a person who has a characteristically good

Emotivism by definition is theory about the use of the meaning of sentences used in moral utterance. It is the expression of feelings or attitude as the function of the meaning of sentences, rather than the actual meaning behind what is said. Alasdiar MacIntyre, in his book, After Virtue, focuses on how emotivism has corrupted modern philosophy into, “nothing but expressions of preference, expressions of attitude or feeling" (11-12). The purpose of this essay is to summarize and analyze the claims made in the formation of modern ethics and critique of philosophical history in After Virtue.

Ethical relativism is the acceptance of differing views as all correct because there is no right answer. Ethical relativism eliminates all judgement because there is arguably no final truth, no right or wrong. As Doug Powell, author of Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics, puts it ethical relativism is the idea that “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me” (79). Simplistically, this ideology follows the conviction that we are unable to pass judgement on another for we do not have the power to say our ways or ideas are superior over another’s, While this may sound logical at first, a closer look into this ideology reveals frightening consequences from what can happen by strictly following

Throughout human existence, questions have arisen concerning the nature of good and evil. Many scientist, philosophers, and theologians have been intrigued by these questions. Through Augustine's Confessions and E. O. Wilson's In Search of Nature, one is accessible to two distinct perspectives concerning the nature of good and evil.

Subjectivism clenches that there are no objective ethical properties and that ethical statements are in fact arbitrary because they do not express unchangeable truths. Instead, moral declarations are made true or false by the attitudes or conventions of the spectators, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone. Thus, for a statement to be considered morally right hardly means that it is met with a green light by the person of interest. Another way of examine this is that judgments about human conduct are form by, and in many ways restricted to, perception or cultural believes.

The primary theme of “Good to Great” discusses what makes great companies and how to transfer good companies to great. All the methods that Collins has mentioned in the book are very practical. So, I truly think that we can apply all his ideas to any organization that serves older adults. Any managers or administers can learn a lot from this book, so as gerontologists. And, in this book review, I will try to combine my understanding about organizations and Collins’s concepts from the book, and find out if his concepts can really fit the general organizations that serve older adults.

Emotivism is a meta-ethical theory developed by AJ Ayer and agreed upon by C.L Stevenson which says that ethical sentences do not possess moral propositions but only emotional attitudes. This theory surged in the late 20th century, and was commonly known as the hooray/boo theory. I will discuss why I believe that this theory is correct and will discuss the problems that Emotivism faces, and I will give reasons on how emotivism can overcome these challenges. I will also be discussing why I think more people should follow Emotivism, and discuss the benefits of this philosophy.

There are many differences between Simple Subjectivism and Emotivism. This paper will compare and contrast both theories, as well as explain why Simple Subjectivism cannot explain moral disagreement, and Emotivism can but incorrectly. By arguing these two ethical views, I can better explain or make a claim on how one ought to understand occurrences of moral

Expressivism is a non-descriptive (it does not use beliefs or truth-conditions to characterise the meaning of moral terms) semantic theory which holds that ‘’to make a normative judgement is to express a non-cognitive attitude’’ (Gibbard, 1990, 84). The distinctive expressivist claim is that we can give an adequate semantics for moral terms using non-cognitive, desire-like attitudes. This contrasts with cognitivism which holds that normative judgements are entirely descriptive, and that to make a normative judgement is to express a belief. Expressivists are typically seen as following in the footsteps of the emotivist analysis of moral terms offered by A.J. Ayer (1936). Ayer claims that moral language is not literally significant at all. Instead, when we utter a sentence like ‘You acted wrongly in stealing that money’ we have not literally asserted anything beyond ‘You stole that money’.

The study of morality is performed through descriptive approach or philosophical approach consisting of normative or prescriptive ethics. One approach says that people should always act in the own self- interest (Individual Ethical Egoism), its premise being everyone should act to my own best interest. There also are those who believe that a person should act in their own interest only (Personal Ethical Egoism) and the third belief is (Universal Ethical Egoism) based on the premise that everyone should act in their own self-interest regardless of others. I assume that you can see the glaring flaws in each of these theories.

This is a doctrine that bases its arguments in the fact that there are no universal absolute truths in ethics and that what is morally right or wrong varies from person to person or from society to society. Ethical relativism is a similar concept, based specifically on the ethics of a culture and how they are related to those of other cultures (Kluckhohn, 2011). Herodotus, the Greek historian advanced this view when he observed that different societies have different customs and that each person thinks that his customs are