WJEC/Eduqas RS for A2/Yr2: Religion and Ethics (DRAFT)

T1 Ethical Thought

Ought is indefinable but can be recognised by intuition H. A. Prichard was a very distinguished moral philosopher who taught at Oxford during the first half of last century. Like Moore, Prichard argued that moral knowledge was indefinable, but it was not the ‘good’ that was the basis of intuitive moral insight. Moore’s distinction was that ‘goodness’ (i.e. that which is good in itself) is the basis of our intuitive recognition and that ‘rightness’ or ‘oughtness’ was the outworking of this. As we have seen, this created some possible incoherence when considering how Moore suggested this was pursued and the consequentialism that followed did not sit comfortably with other Intuitionists. For Prichard (and Ross) it was the ‘rightness’ or sense of obligation or duty that was the intuitive element of our moral thinking. Their approach became more deontological. That is, when there are actual moral conflicts we learn to decide upon the greater obligation, and over time, develop a more advanced, intuitive sense of right and wrong. Despite empirical evidence, it was still the sense of duty and moral intuitionism that was the driver in deciding what to do and NOT a goal of creating the most possible good. Prichard and, later, Ross, were philosophers who had a slightly different approach to Moore in that they were concerned about the sense of ‘oughtness’ and ‘duty’ as a key element of intuition and defining the way we think morally rather than it being a consequence of our moral insight as Moore had attested. Born in London in 1871, Harold Prichard attended Clifton College in Bristol and was admitted to New College, Oxford to study mathematics. After receiving a First Class Honours in mathematics in 1891, he then studied Greats (ancient history and philosophy) taking First Class Honours in 1894. After a brief period working for a firm of solicitors in London, he returned to Oxford where he spent the rest of his life, first as Fellow of Hertford College (1895–98) and then of Trinity College (1898–1924). Prichard published remarkably little: only two lectures and two papers in moral philosophy, the most famous being his widely anthologised paper, ‘ Does Moral Philosophy Rest on a Mistake ?’, published in 1912. However, Prichard is reported to have written much that he never published – writings that were nevertheless circulated among his colleagues over whom he apparently had substantial philosophical influence. Anthologies of his unpublished writing were made after his death. For Prichard moral knowledge was unique, sui generis and also was clearly separated from reason and empirical influence. Prichard rejected Moore’s intuitive consequentialism that argued that ‘what we ought to do’ is to act so that we produce the greatest amount of good through our actions. Prichard argued that since our moral intuition can be found in our sense of obligation or duty when we recognise what we ‘ought’ or ‘should’ do, then any reasoning about ‘what should we do?’ or ‘how should we act?’ has already been answered. Moral truth is contained within the sense of obligation that we intuitively feel when confronted with a situation. This truth, however, is not subject to reason and since this is the case, the way to behave morally is equally not the result of rational analysis and debate. We just ‘know’ what we ought to do. Duty remains underivative , indefinable and an irreducible concept just like Moore’s ‘good’ and yellow in three ways: 1. In the normative realm it maintains the non-naturalist view that normative truths of duty are sui generis, neither reducible to nor derivable from empirical investigation. They are self-evident. 2. Neither are the truths of duty extracted from moral judgements, normative truths or values that have a non-moral origin.

Specification content H. A. Prichard, ‘ought to do’ has no definition; recognise what we ‘ought to do’ by intuition.

Key quote Knowledge is not knowledge of the ground of the obligation, but is itself the ground of the obligation. (Warnock)

DRAFT

Should this text be kept despite the photo having been deleted? – design

Key terms Irreducible: cannot be broken down into further parts Underivative: is not dependent on or derived from something else, a simple concept

37