What do you mean?

'Ghandi was good; Hitler was bad; honesty is right; killing is wrong...'






We use words such as 'good' and 'bad' all the time, often in an amoral sense, 'That was a good Theology lesson(!)', but, more importantly, we regularly use them in a moral sense.

But, what do we really mean when when we say, 'Hitler was bad'?

Do we mean...
He did things that are intrinsically wrong;
He did things that had negative consequences;
He did things which I personally feel are wrong;
He did things that the majority of people feel are wrong;
He did things that no people should ever do?

There are those, such as A. J. Ayer, who hold that ethical statements are no more than expressions of emotion. So if I say, 'The Iraq war was wrong' all I am really saying is 'Boo to the Iraq War' in the same way one may Boo at a pantomime villain. No proof can be offered as to whether the statement is true or not, it is simply how I feel. This is called Emotivism.

On the hand there are those who propose that moral statements are objective, something is either right or wrong. G. E. Moore suggested that we recognise 'good' intuitively, we simply know when we see it. We cannot, however, define goodness. For example I may say that charity is good, but this only says that charity has the quality of goodness, it doesn't actually say what goodness is. What it does do though is show that we do recognise goodness when we see it. This is called Intuitionism.

Others, such as F. H. Bradley, advocate that ethical statements are like any other, and that they can be shown to be the case. For example, 'Martin Luther King was a Baptist minister' can be shown by checking historical records, and equally 'Martin Luther King was a good man' can be shown by examing his actions and their results. As such, his goodness would not simply be my opinion, it would be shown to be objectively true. This is called Ethical Naturalism.

So when, for example, we hear Terry Pratchett arguing that it is right for people to be allowed to decide when they die, what does he actually mean? Is it what he would prefer; is it what would benefit most people or is he saying it is some sort of absolute right?

I wonder how many of us say we think things are right or wrong without really stopping to think what we actually mean?

To explore these ideas further click here.