Meta-ethics

What is meta-ethics?

Meta-ethics is a study of ethics which attempts to explore the meaning and use of ethical language.
Asks questions like - ''why do we use words like 'good' or 'bad'?" - when defining a moral value.
E.g what do I mean when I say ''abortion is wrong?" Do I mean abortion is bad? But what is the definition of bad? Does bad have a definition? Where are moral truths found? Are there such things as moral truths.
Moral statements/assertions about morality can either be cognitive (true or false) or non-cognitive (expressions of feelings, desires or emotions).
Cognitive statements are objective (not influenced by personal feelings or opinion) and absolute - they have one meaning and one meaning only.
Non-cognitive statements are subjective (based on or influenced by desires or feelings) and can be more interpretive.
There are three important meta-ethical theories: naturalism, intuitionism and emotivism.

1 of 6

Naturalism is a cognitive approach to ethical language associated with F.H Bradley.
It states that there are objective moral truths, and these can be found by looking at things we see in the world. Words like ''good'' are reflected in nature. We look to the senses in order to verify a moral statement. Good is a natural quality.
Theories such as natural law, utilitarianism and situation ethics are all examples of naturalist theories.
E.g, If assume that pain is wrong from what I've seen in the world, I'll be able to conclude that any action which causes pain must also be wrong (this is criticised by Moore who says ''is'' doesn't lead to ''ought'' - Hume). From this, I would be able to conclude a moral truth such as ''stabbing people is wrong''. Stabbing is wrong because it causes pain and I've concluded that pain is a bad thing from my sensory experience.
Strengths: Moral claims can be true or false dependent on the senses but can still be discussed rationally. Makes sense - if we see pain in the world, we can make an assertion about it. Easily and universally understood because the evidence is in nature. ''Nature'' is used as a ''buzz word'' in advertising campaigns e.g shampoos with ''natural goodness''. Allows for moral progression.
Weaknesses: Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy - naturalism makes the mistake of assuming that good is a natural quality. Is doesn't imply ought. Technology has moved us away from nature.

2 of 6

Formulated by G.E Moore (and influence by W.D Ross and H.A Prichard) - intuitionism is formulated as an argument against naturalism.
Cognitive theory - there are moral truths which are true are false. These moral truths are found intuitively - does not use the senses.
Goodness is not a natural quality. It is not a material substance and we cannot and should not try and define it.
Naturalistic Fallacy: Naturalism makes a jump between what is found in nature and what is good. Good isn't a natural quality and cannot be defined. Instead, goodness is known through intution (a priori). We should not use experience to work out whether a moral statement is true or false because we'll get a different answer each time we do. Distinguished Hume's ''is-ought gap''. e.g ''Oranges give you lots of vitamin C'' does not tell me ''you ought to eat oranges''.
''Good is good and that is the end of the matter'' - Moore. Compared good to the colour yellow. We all know what yellow is and we can point to things which are yellow in order to illustrate our point. This is something which is known. However, we cannot define yellow, nor can we define good, but we can point to things which are ''good'' to try and illustrate what we are talking about. We should not break good down any further.
W.D Ross - prima facie duties - moral duties which we know intuitively e.g telling the truth.

3 of 6

H.A Prichard - also accepted intutionism but distinguished between 1) general thinking reasoning and 2) moral thinking - our immediate intuitive response to a moral dilemma or situation - takes into account human instinct/survival mode, as well as rationality.
Strengths: Reflects ideas about human instinct. True to some extent, there are some things we ''just know''. Similar to conscience or a gut feeling which tells us what's right or wrong. Avoids complex debate about what is good since we cannot define it.
Weaknesses: Moral truths must exist for this to work. If we don't know what the definition of good is, how can we know things are good inherently? If intuitionism worked properly, we would all come to the same moral conclusions, but we don't. Nietzche - accuses Moore of ''ethical blindness'' - the theory allows anyone to get away with anything by claiming it was their gut feeling telling them the moral truth. Allows for religious fanaticism.

4 of 6

Formulated by A.J Ayer and influenced by C.L Stevenson.
Non-cognitive, there are no moral facts.
Ethical statements are only meaningful if: they can be define into Hume's fork (analytic/synthetic). If they are synthetic they must be verified by sense experience to work out whether they are meaningful or not. Thus ethical statements are not meaningless, e.g ''abortion is wrong'' cannot be verified and makes no assertions about abortion.
Instead, moral statements are expressions of feelings or emotions, hence why emotivism is known as the ''boo... hurrah'' theory. E.g saying ''murder is wrong'' is really saying ''murder...boooo''. Similarly, saying ''giving to charity is good'' is saying ''charity... hurrah''.
C.L Stevenson: agrees with Ayer in that moral statements are expressions of emotion but says that they also create some sort of magnetism toward an action. E.g when I say ''killing is wrong'' I am saying ''boo'' to killing but I'm also trying to get you to agree with me. We are taught this in early childhood by our parents (Freud would agree).
R.B Braithwaite: moral judgements serve to bind a community together, e.g in the West, FGM is considered as wrong, whereas in other cultures, it is accepted. These rules can bind a community together.

5 of 6

Strengths: Culturally relative. Boo/hurrah can be interpreted differently in different cultures. Allows all opinions to be valid since it's interpretive. Moral language is usually intended to be reciprocal, (as suggested by C.L Stevenson). Allows us to understand the ethical viewpoints of others.
Weaknesses: Surely there are moral truths or the world would be full of ethical chaos. Belittles our ability to reason in moral decision making. James Rachels says that Ayer makes no distinction between the ''ouch'' when I stub my toe and the ''that's wrong'' approach I take when I see a murder. This is wrong since murder is on an entirely different level to stubbing my toe. Mel Thompson - ''you cannot reduce morality to a set of cheers and boos''. Peter Vardy, ''emotivism is hot air and nothing else''. Alasdair MacIntyre says that Ayer places paedophiles and child carers as equals.

6 of 6