Introduction to meta-ethics

Welcome to Meta-Ethics!

In your study of Ethics so far, you have likely looked at Normative Ethics. This asks the question: "What should I do?" Theories like Natural Moral Law or Situation Ethics give us rules for how to behave.

Meta-ethics is different. It is like taking a step back and looking at the language we use. Instead of asking what is "good," we ask: "What does the word 'good' actually mean?" It is the "philosophy of ethical language." This might seem abstract at first, but it is the foundation of all moral debate. Don't worry if it feels a bit "meta" (beyond) to begin with—we will break it down into three clear theories.

1. Divine Command Theory (DCT)

Divine Command Theory is a religious approach to meta-ethics. It argues that the terms "right" and "wrong" are defined by God's will.

If you are a follower of this theory, "good" simply means "that which is commanded by God," and "bad" means "that which is forbidden by God." In this view, morality is not a human invention; it is an objective truth handed down by a divine creator.

Key Features:

• Objective Morality: Right and wrong do not change based on human opinion or culture. They are fixed by God.
• God as the Source: For a Divine Command Theorist, there is no "standard" of goodness above God. God is the standard.

Strengths and Weaknesses:

Strengths:
- It is clear and simple. There is no confusion about what is right if God has spoken.
- It provides a universal standard for all believers, regardless of their personal feelings.

Weaknesses:
- The Euthyphro Dilemma: Does God command things because they are good, or are they good because God commands them? If things are good only because God commands them, then morality could be arbitrary (God could command something cruel, and it would technically be "good").
- Pluralism: Different religions claim different commands from God. How do we know which ones are correct?

Key Takeaway: In Divine Command Theory, "good" = "what God says."

2. Naturalism (Utilitarianism)

Ethical Naturalism is the idea that moral terms can be defined using natural facts about the world. You can look at the world, observe how it works, and "see" what is good. The syllabus focuses on Bentham and Utilitarianism as the primary example of this.

For Jeremy Bentham, "good" is not a mysterious religious concept. Instead, "good" is a natural property: pleasure (or happiness). "Bad" is simply pain (or unhappiness).

Key Features:

• Cognitivism: Naturalists believe that moral statements (like "Murder is wrong") are facts that can be proven true or false.
  
• Observation: We can use science or observation to measure morality. If an action causes 50 units of pain and 100 units of pleasure, we can "prove" it is naturally good.

Strengths and Weaknesses:

Strengths:
- It makes ethics objective and grounded in reality. We don't have to guess; we can measure outcomes.
- It aligns with human nature. Most people naturally seek pleasure and avoid pain.

Weaknesses:
- The Naturalistic Fallacy: Critics argue you cannot turn an "is" (a natural fact, like "people like pleasure") into an "ought" (a moral rule, like "you ought to provide pleasure"). Just because something is a certain way in nature doesn't mean it ought to be that way.
- Simplistic: Can we really reduce complex human morality down to simple pleasure and pain?

Key Takeaway: In Naturalism, "good" = a natural fact (like pleasure).

3. Non-Naturalism (Intuitionism)

Non-naturalism (often called Intuitionism) disagrees with both theories above. It argues that "good" is a real thing, but it cannot be defined by looking at the natural world or by religious commands.

Intuitionists argue that "good" is a simple, unanalysable property.

The "Yellow" Analogy:

Think about the color yellow. If someone asks you to define "yellow," you can't really do it. you can point to a banana or the sun, but those are just things that are yellow—they aren't the definition itself. You just know what yellow is when you see it.

Intuitionists say "good" is exactly the same. You cannot define it using other words like "pleasure" or "God's command." You simply use your moral intuition to recognise it when you see it.

Key Features:

• Self-Evident: Moral truths are known through the mind/intuition, not through the five senses.
• Objective but Non-Natural: "Good" is a real thing, but it isn't a "natural" thing like a chemical or a physical force.

Strengths and Weaknesses:

Strengths:
- It avoids the "Naturalistic Fallacy" because it doesn't try to define "good" as a natural fact.
- It explains why many people have a "gut feeling" about right and wrong even if they can't explain why.

Weaknesses:
- Disagreement: If morality is based on intuition, why do people's intuitions differ? One person's "gut feeling" might say abortion is wrong, while another's says it is right.
- Unverifiable: There is no way to "check" if an intuition is correct. It makes moral debate very difficult.

Key Takeaway: In Intuitionism, "good" is an indefinable property we "just know" through intuition.

Quick Review Table

Use this table to keep the three main theories clear in your mind for your AO1 (Knowledge) exam questions.

Common Mistakes to Avoid:

- Confusing Normative and Meta-Ethics: In a Meta-ethics essay, don't spend too much time talking about what is right (e.g., "Giving to charity is good"). Focus on what the word means (e.g., "When I say charity is good, am I describing a natural fact or an intuition?").
- Thinking Intuitionism is "just an opinion": Intuitionists believe moral truths are objective (real facts), even though they are known through the mind. It's not just "how you feel" on a whim.

Exam Tip: AO1 vs AO2

For AO1 (10 marks), you need to clearly explain these theories and use the technical terms (Cognitivism, Naturalism, etc.).
For AO2 (15 marks), you need to evaluate. For example, you might be asked: "Naturalism is the most successful approach to meta-ethics." Discuss. To answer this, you would compare Naturalism's strengths against the strengths of Intuitionism or Divine Command Theory.