I want you to edit this essay to read more concisely, flow smoothly, and show a deeper understanding of the essay question and its implications. Include headings where relevant to increase readability. 
The broader essay topic is: “Outline and discuss Prior’s argument that ethics is not autonomous in the light of Shorter’s critique. What kind of No-Ought-From-is thesis are Prior’s counterexamples counterexamples to? What implications (if any) does Prior’s ‘refutation’ of autonomy have for meta- ethics?”
The essay is as follows:
Introduction
The question of whether ethics is autonomous is a long-standing debate among philosophers. At the center of this debate is the no-ought-from-is argument, which claims that moral conclusions cannot be derived solely from empirical statements about what is. In this essay, we will examine Michael Prior’s argument against the autonomy of ethics and its implications for meta-ethics in the light of Edward Shorter’s critique. We will also explore the kind of No-Ought-From-Is thesis that Prior’s counterexamples counter. 
The No-Ought-From-Is argument, initially proposed by David Hume, contends that moral claims cannot be derived from non-moral claims alone. Hume argues that there is no logical connection between factual statements and moral judgments; therefore, any claim about what ought to be cannot come from claims about what is. This argument has been a subject of intense debate in the philosophical community, particularly in the context of moral theories and their relationship to the empirical world. 
Prior’s argument that ethics is not autonomous questions the validity of treating moral judgments as autonomous from factual statements. He argues that ethical judgments are always dependent on empirical propositions. Prior’s argument stems from his belief that the claim of moral autonomy is flawed and contradicts the nature of ethical language itself. In Prior’s view, moral judgments cannot be made without invoking non-moral normative concepts that ultimately depend on empirical propositions. 
This essay aims to outline and discuss Prior’s argument against the autonomy of ethics, as well as Shorter’s critique of this argument. We will also explore the No-Ought-From-Is thesis in greater detail, analyzing Prior’s counterexamples as counterexamples to this thesis. Finally, we will assess the implications of Prior’s refutation of autonomy for meta-ethics, analyzing alternative perspectives on the subject. 
In light of these objectives, this essay will provide a comprehensive analysis of the ongoing debate on the autonomy of ethics, including its implications for moral theory and the nature of ethical language.

Prior’s Argument for Ethics Not Being Autonomous
In his critique of the autonomy of ethics, Michael Prior advocates the position that ethical language is not autonomous but is dependent on empirical premises. His argument centers on the concept of autonomy and the way in which the language of ethics relies on non-moral, empirical propositions. 
Autonomy refers to the notion that moral judgments are not reducible to statements of fact or dependent on empirical propositions. This tenet of autonomy is central to many moral theories, including Kantian ethics and deontological ethics. However, Prior contends that the concept of autonomy is fundamentally flawed, given that ethical language is necessarily dependent on empirical propositions. 
Prior posits that there is a necessary dependence between ethical language and factual claims about the world. Specifically, he argues that ethical language is inherently dependent on empirical propositions, which underpin non-moral normative concepts like obligation and justification. Moral judgments are, therefore, always dependent on facts about the world and cannot be made without invoking normative concepts that are themselves dependent on empirical propositions. 
One of the primary arguments that Prior presents in defense of his position is that ethical judgments depend on the concept of justification. When one makes a moral judgment, they seek to justify that judgment by referencing other empirical propositions about the world. For example, if one makes the moral judgment that killing is wrong, they may seek to justify that judgment by invoking empirical propositions about the value of life. Therefore, the justification for the moral judgment is itself dependent on the empirical propositions that provide context. 
Another argument that Prior presents for the dependence of ethical language is based on the role of norms in ethical reasoning. Prior argues that ethical norms cannot be independent of empirical propositions. Instead, ethical norms are based on empirical claims, serving as a method of codifying these claims into general rules of behavior. Thus, ethical language is inherently dependent on normative propositions that, in turn, rest on empirical premises. 
Prior’s argument against the autonomy of ethics is a fundamental challenge to the idea that moral claims can be made without any reference to the empirical world. Instead, he argues that ethical language is necessarily connected to empirical statements, meaning that moral judgments cannot be considered entirely separate from factual claims. 
To support his claims, Prior presents several counterexamples to the No-Ought-From-Is thesis, which argues that one cannot derive moral judgments from non-moral claims. One example he presents is the case of euthanasia, where one might argue that a terminally ill patient’s suffering justifies killing them. This argument makes use of both a factual claim (that the patient is suffering) and a normative claim (that killing the patient is justified), demonstrating the necessary dependence of ethics on empirical propositions. 
Another example Prior presents is the case of moral expertise, where some individuals are considered more qualified than others in making moral judgments. According to Prior, this expertise is grounded in knowledge of empirical propositions, such as social and psychological claims. This implies that there is a necessary dependence of moral knowledge on empirical premises, as moral expertise requires knowledge of relevant empirical claims. 
In summary, Prior’s argument against the autonomy of ethics relies on the notion that ethical language is inherently dependent on empirical propositions. His counterexamples to the No-Ought-From-Is thesis support his position, suggesting that ethical judgments necessitate empirical premises. The implications of his arguments for meta-ethics and moral theory are far-reaching, challenging the very idea that moral claims can be made independently of facts about the world.

Shorter’s Critique of Prior’s Argument
Edward Shorter offers a critique of Prior’s argument against the autonomy of ethics. Shorter maintains that Prior’s position misinterprets the concept of autonomy, leading to a flawed conclusion. Shorter argues that autonomy does not require that moral judgments be completely free of empirical statements. Instead, autonomy can be understood as a requirement that moral judgments be independent of any particular empirical claim. 
Shorter’s critique centers on a distinction between autonomy and stronger forms of independence concerning moral judgments. Shorter maintains that autonomy does not require that moral judgments be completely isolated from empirical propositions. Instead, autonomy simply requires that moral judgments be independent of any particular empirical claim. As such, autonomy still upholds the separation of moral and empirical language, even if moral judgments cannot be made without invoking empirical propositions. 
Shorter argues that moral requirements are not reducible to empirical claims, regardless of the degree of interaction between ethics and empirical concepts. Instead, moral requirements derive their relevance from a different kind of relationship to the empirical world. This means that while empirical propositions may play a role in moral judgments, they are not sufficient to determine those judgments entirely. Shorter contends that morally significant concepts, such as obligation and goodness, have an epistemic independence from empirical propositions, and are therefore autonomous. 
Shorter also explicitly differentiates between semantic and epistemic considerations concerning autonomy. While Prior’s argument focuses mainly on semantic considerations, Shorter’s critique draws attention to the epistemic requirements of autonomy. Shorter emphasizes that moral judgments must have epistemic independence from empirical claims, meaning that empirical propositions cannot fully determine the content of moral judgments. 
Shorter’s critique of Prior’s argument emphasizes a crucial distinction between autonomy and independence. Shorter argues that autonomy can be interpreted as requiring moral judgments to be independent of any particular empirical claim, rather than completely separate from empirical propositions. This nuanced interpretation of the autonomy of ethics allows for the possibility that moral expectations can be independent while still being influenced by empirical claims. 
Overall, Shorter’s critique is a response to Prior’s argument against the autonomy of ethics and emphasizes a distinction between autonomy and other forms of independence. Shorter argues that autonomy does not require moral judgments to be free from empirical claims but only seeks to separate moral reasoning from specific empirical claims. Shorter defends the autonomy of ethics, arguing that moral requirements are independent of empirical propositions.

The No-Ought-From-Is Thesis
The No-Ought-From-Is thesis is a popular philosophical concept that has been discussed by philosophers for a long time. It is a thesis that posits that one cannot derive moral claims from factual or descriptive statements. The thesis suggests that we cannot infer moral duties or obligations from factual premises alone. In other words, one cannot get an “ought” from an “is” statement. This implies that the moral realm is not dependent on the factual realm; rather, it exists independently. This thesis has been used to support the claim that ethics is autonomous.
Prior’s counterexamples to autonomy, which we examined in the previous section, can be seen as counterexamples to the No-Ought-From-Is thesis. Prior makes use of examples that, he claims, demonstrate that moral statements can be derived from factual statements. For example, he suggests that given that X is a murderer and murder is morally repugnant, we would be morally required to ensure that X does not commit murder again. Here, Prior is suggesting that an “ought” statement can be derived from an “is” statement (i.e., X is a murderer). Similarly, he argues that we can derive a moral obligation from a factual statement by using inferences such as “if you want to achieve X, you ought to do Y”.
Prior’s counterexamples are important because they challenge the idea that ethical statements cannot be derived from factual premises. However, Prior’s counterexamples have also been heavily criticized by some philosophers, who have argued that they are not adequate. For instance, some philosophers have argued that Prior’s counterexamples do not show that ethical statements can be derived from pure factual claims. Instead, they argue, Prior’s examples imply that ethical statements do not depend solely on facts, but rather on our desires and intentions. This view would suggest that our actions are motivated by our desires and intentions; for example, the desire not to be murdered motivates us to act in ways that prevent someone from murdering us.
On the other hand, some philosophers have responded to Prior’s counterexamples by suggesting that his examples do not actually demonstrate that moral statements can be logically deduced from factual premises. Instead, they argue that Prior is making use of principles that are independently moral in order to derive moral statements. According to this view, the moral principles that Prior is appealing to are themselves not based on factual information, but rather on ethical intuitions and principles.
The issue of whether moral claims can be derived from factual statements is a complex one. The No-Ought-From-Is thesis has been one of the most widely discussed topics in meta-ethics, and there are still ongoing debates about it in contemporary philosophy. Some philosophers criticize the thesis as inadequate, while others use it to support their theories of meta-ethics.
Overall, Prior’s counterexamples present a challenge to the No-Ought-From-Is thesis, and they suggest that ethical claims can be derived from factual statements. However, the extent to which these counterexamples are successful in challenging the thesis is still a matter of ongoing debate. In the next section, we will look at the implications of Prior’s refutation of autonomy for meta-ethics.

Implications of Prior’s Refutation of Autonomy for Meta-Ethics
Prior’s refutation of autonomy has significant implications for meta-ethics. The main impact of Prior’s argument is that it challenges the traditional view that ethics is an autonomous discipline. As we have seen, the view of autonomy holds that ethical claims cannot be derived from factual premises alone. However, Prior’s counterexamples demonstrate that this view might not hold in all cases.
One implication of Prior’s refutation of autonomy is that it undermines the claim that ethical theories can be grounded in purely factual claims. This position has been held by many philosophers who argue that ethical theories should be based on empirical data. However, if Prior’s counterexamples are correct, then it seems that ethical theories must be grounded in something other than empirical facts. This would suggest that ethical theories must rely on some non-factual or normative principles that are not reducible to empirical facts.
Another implication of Prior’s argument is that it challenges the traditional distinction between facts and values, which has been a fundamental assumption in philosophy for a long time. The distinction between facts and values suggests that there is a fundamental difference between factual claims (which describe the world) and value claims (which prescribe what ought to be done). However, if Prior’s argument is correct, then it seems that value claims can be derived from factual premises. This suggests that the boundary between facts and values might not be as clear-cut as previously thought.
Prior’s refutation of autonomy might also have implications for our understanding of moral reasoning. If moral claims can be derived from factual statements, as Prior suggests, then it seems that moral reasoning might not be so different from other forms of practical reasoning. This suggests that moral reasoning might be more akin to practical reasoning, which is concerned with achieving particular ends, than to theoretical reasoning, which is concerned with discovering the truth about the world. This would have significant implications for our understanding of the role of reason in ethics.
Overall, Prior’s refutation of autonomy has profound implications for meta-ethics. If Prior’s argument is correct, then it challenges many of the traditional assumptions in meta-ethics and raises new questions about the relationship between facts and values, the nature of ethical theories and our understanding of moral reasoning. However, the validity of Prior’s argument is still subject to ongoing debate, and much work needs to be done to fully understand its implications for meta-ethics.

Critical Evaluation and Conclusion
The debate surrounding Prior’s argument for ethics not being autonomous and Shorter’s critique of the argument is a complex and ongoing one, with many modern philosophers continuing to discuss the topic. In this essay, we have briefly examined Prior’s argument against autonomy and his counterexamples, evaluating them in light of Shorter’s critique. We have also discussed the No-Ought-From-Is thesis and its relevance to Prior’s counterexamples. Finally, we assessed the implications of Prior’s refutation of autonomy on meta-ethics.
In evaluating Prior’s argument, it is clear that his counterexamples pose a significant challenge to the traditional view that ethics is an autonomous discipline. His examples suggest that ethical statements can be derived from factual statements, which contradicts the No-Ought-From-Is thesis. While some philosophers continue to criticize his counterexamples, it is widely acknowledged that his argument has led to a shift in the way many philosophers approach meta-ethics.
One criticism of Prior’s approach is that it relies too heavily on logical deduction and ignores the role of intuition and emotion in ethical reasoning. Many philosophers argue that ethical judgments are not purely logical, and that intuition and emotion play important roles in moral reasoning. As such, they argue that Prior’s counterexamples are inadequate in demonstrating that ethical claims can be derived purely from factual claims.
Moreover, some philosophers argue that Prior’s counterexamples are limited in scope and cannot be generalized to all moral claims. They claim that while some ethical statements can be derived from factual premises, others cannot, as they rely on normative principles that cannot be derived from any factual statements.
Shorter’s critique of Prior’s argument is also relevant to our evaluation of the debate. Shorter’s main criticism is that Prior’s counterexamples are not actually instances of ethical claims being derived purely from factual claims. Rather, Shorter argues, Prior is making use of background principles that are not reducible to factual claims. In this sense, Shorter’s criticism poses a significant challenge to Prior’s argument, and it suggests that his counterexamples might not be as sound as they initially appear.
Despite the criticisms leveled against Prior’s argument, it is clear that his challenge to the view of autonomy has had lasting implications for meta-ethics. As we have discussed, Prior’s argument has challenged many of the traditional assumptions in meta-ethics and has raised important questions about the relationship between facts and values, the nature of ethical theories, and our understanding of moral reasoning. 
In conclusion, the debate surrounding Prior’s argument for ethics not being autonomous has led to a significant shift in the way many contemporary philosophers approach meta-ethics. While his argument has been challenged, it is widely acknowledged that his counterexamples have led to a re-evaluation of the traditional view of autonomy. It is clear that this debate is far from over, and much work remains to be done to fully understand the implications of Prior’s argument for meta-ethics. Nevertheless, the ongoing discussion highlights the importance of grappling with the complex relationship between facts and values, and the role that reason plays in ethical reasoning.