Welcome to the World of Meta-Ethics!
In most of your Religious Studies course, you look at normative ethics—theories that tell us how to behave (like Utilitarianism or Natural Moral Law). But in this chapter, we are going "meta."
Meta-ethics (or Ethical Language) doesn't ask "What should I do?" Instead, it asks: "What do we actually mean when we use words like 'good', 'bad', 'right', or 'wrong'?" Are we stating facts, or just sharing our feelings? Don't worry if this seems a bit "mind-bending" at first—it’s actually very logical once you break it down!
1. The Great Divide: Cognitive vs. Non-Cognitive
Before we dive into the theories, we need to understand the two main "camps" philosophers sit in when they talk about moral language.
Cognitivism (Realism)
Cognitivists believe that moral statements describe the world. When I say "Stealing is wrong," I am stating a factual claim that can be true or false.
Analogy: It’s like saying "The grass is green." You can look at the grass and check if it’s true. Cognitivists think "goodness" is a real property we can talk about.
Non-Cognitivism (Anti-Realism)
Non-cognitivists believe moral statements are not facts. They are expressions of something else, like emotions or wishes. They cannot be true or false.
Analogy: It’s like shouting "Yay!" or "Boo!" at a football match. You aren't stating a fact; you are expressing how you feel.
Quick Review:
- Cognitive: Factual, can be true/false, describes the world.
- Non-Cognitive: Not factual, cannot be true/false, expresses feelings/intentions.
2. Ethical Naturalism: "Goodness is a Fact"
Ethical Naturalism is a cognitive theory. It suggests that moral properties (like "good") are just like natural properties (like "sweet" or "tall"). We can use our senses and science to discover what is "good."
For example, a Naturalist might say:
- "Good" means whatever causes the most happiness.
- We can observe happiness, so we can scientifically prove what is "good."
The Problem: The "Is-Ought" Gap
The philosopher David Hume pointed out a big flaw here. He said we often see people describe how the world is (facts) and then suddenly jump to saying how it ought to be (morals), without explaining the link.
\( \text{Fact (Is)} \neq \text{Moral (Ought)} \)
Example: "Humans have a natural instinct to survive (Fact), so we ought to never use contraception (Moral)." Hume says you can't just jump from the fact to the rule!
Key Takeaway: Naturalists think morals are facts we can see in nature, but critics say they confuse "what is" with "what should be."
3. G.E. Moore and the "Yellow" Problem
G.E. Moore was a Cognitivist, but he hated Naturalism. He came up with two famous arguments to take it down.
The Naturalistic Fallacy
Moore argued that you cannot define "good" by pointing at something else, like "pleasure" or "happiness." He said "good" is a simple concept that cannot be broken down into smaller parts.
The Analogy: Think of the color Yellow. You know what yellow is when you see it, but you can’t explain "yellow" to a blind person by using other words. You can't say "Yellow is a vibration of light" because that's physics, not the feeling of yellow. Moore said "Good" is exactly like "Yellow"—it’s indefinable.
The Open Question Argument
Moore said that if "Good" really meant "Pleasure," then the question "Is pleasure good?" would be silly—it would be like asking "Is a square a square?" (a closed question).
But "Is pleasure good?" is actually an open question—we can argue about it! This proves that "Good" and "Pleasure" are not the same thing.
Intuitionism (Non-Naturalism)
So, if we can't see "good" in nature, how do we know it? Moore says we have a special moral sense called Intuition. We just "know" what is right, the same way we just "know" a color is yellow.
Memory Aid: "Moore is Less." Moore says you can't add anything to the definition of "good"—it’s just "good."
4. Emotivism: The "Boo-Hurrah" Theory
Now we move into Non-Cognitivism. This theory was heavily influenced by Logical Positivism (the Vienna Circle), a group of thinkers who believed a statement only has meaning if it is:
1. Analytic (true by definition, like \( 2 + 2 = 4 \)).
2. Synthetic (proven by senses/science, like "It is raining").
A.J. Ayer looked at moral statements like "Murder is wrong" and realized they aren't analytic OR synthetic. Therefore, he concluded, they are meaningless in terms of facts.
How Emotivism Works
If they aren't facts, what are they? Ayer said they are just emotions.
- When you say "Giving to charity is good," you are really saying "Hurrah to charity!"
- When you say "Stealing is bad," you are really saying "Boo to stealing!"
Functional and Persuasive Language
Later, C.L. Stevenson added that ethical language isn't just about my feelings; it’s persuasive. We use these words to try and get other people to feel the same way we do.
Criticisms of Emotivism:
- No room for debate: If ethics is just "Boo" and "Hurrah," how can we have a serious argument about justice or rights? It makes ethics a matter of who can shout the loudest.
- Trivializes Morality: Comparing "Murder is wrong" to "I don't like broccoli" seems to miss how serious morality is.
Key Takeaway: Emotivism says moral words don't describe facts; they just express emotions and try to influence others.
5. Prescriptivism: Moral Rules as Commands
Developed by R.M. Hare, this is another non-cognitive theory. Hare agreed that moral statements aren't facts, but he didn't think they were just "Boo/Hurrah."
He argued that moral language is prescriptive—it tells us what to do. When I say "Stealing is wrong," I am actually giving a command: "Do not steal."
Crucially, Hare believed moral rules must be Universalizable. If I say "You shouldn't steal," I have to accept that I shouldn't steal either.
Quick Review Box: Which Theory is Which?
1. Ethical Naturalism: "Good" is a natural fact (like happiness) that we can observe. (Cognitive)
2. Intuitionism: "Good" is a simple, indefinable property we just "know" through intuition. (Cognitive)
3. Emotivism: "Good" is just an expression of emotion—"Hurrah!" (Non-cognitive)
4. Prescriptivism: "Good" is a recommendation or command that we should all follow. (Non-cognitive)
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Confusing Moore with Naturalism: Remember, Moore attacks Naturalism! He is an Intuitionist.
- Thinking "Non-Cognitive" means "Stupid": It doesn't! It just means the language doesn't function as a "truth-claim" or a fact.
- Forgetting the Scholars: You must mention G.E. Moore for Intuitionism and A.J. Ayer for Emotivism. These are the two big names in your syllabus!