Paper 2 The application of ethical theories and ethical language: applied ethics in war, sexual ethics and medical ethics, and meta-ethics including naturalism, intuitionism and emotivism.

What this dot point is asking

Edexcel Paper 2 closes with applied ethics (using the theories on real moral issues) and meta-ethics (the second-order question of what moral words such as "good" and "wrong" actually mean). Applied questions ask you to apply and compare theories on issues such as war, sexual ethics and medical ethics. Meta-ethics asks whether moral statements are true or false at all, and is among the most evaluative topics on the paper.

The answer

Applied ethics: war and peace

Applied ethics: sexual and medical ethics

• Sexual ethics: natural law ties sex to the primary precept of reproduction, generating traditional positions, while situation ethics and utilitarianism judge by love or consequences and consent, producing more permissive views. The clash between sanctity and autonomy runs throughout.
• Medical ethics: on euthanasia and abortion, natural law's preservation of life and the sanctity-of-life principle generate strong protections, with double effect permitting proportionate pain relief that may shorten life and the withdrawal of disproportionate treatment. Consequentialist and autonomy-based approaches weigh quality of life and the patient's wishes. The "person" question (when life has full moral status) is central.

Applied questions reward applying more than one theory and judging which handles the issue best, not describing the issue.

Meta-ethics: ethical naturalism

Meta-ethics: intuitionism and the naturalistic fallacy

G E Moore (Principia Ethica) argues that "good" is a simple, non-natural, indefinable property, like "yellow". Any attempt to define it in natural terms commits the "naturalistic fallacy" (confusing what good is with what good things are), which Moore exposes with the "open question" argument: of any proposed definition we can still sensibly ask "but is that good?". We know basic moral truths by intuition. W D Ross develops intuitionism with prima facie duties that can be intuited and weighed.

Meta-ethics: emotivism

Evaluation across the three: naturalism makes ethics objective and arguable but faces Hume's is-ought gap and Moore's fallacy; intuitionism preserves objectivity but cannot settle disputes when intuitions clash and looks mysterious; emotivism fits the emotional force and persistence of moral disagreement but seems to reduce ethics to preference, leaving no room for moral reasoning, error or progress.

Examples in context

A model meta-ethics essay weighs naturalism, intuitionism and emotivism on one test (can it explain genuine moral disagreement and reasoning?), then judges.

Try this

Q1. Evaluate the view that just war theory can never justify modern warfare. [20 marks]

• What the marker wants. An AO2 essay applying jus ad bellum and jus in bello criteria, weighing them against the destructiveness of modern weapons and the pacifist and realist alternatives, and concluding with reasons.

Q2. Explain Moore's naturalistic fallacy. [8 marks]

• Cue. The error of trying to define the simple, non-natural property "good" in terms of natural properties (such as pleasure); the open-question argument shows that of any such definition we can still ask "but is that good?", so "good" is indefinable and known by intuition.