The document explores various theories in meta-ethics, including divine command theory, ethical naturalism, and intuitionism, explaining their strengths and weaknesses. It differentiates between normative ethics, which dictate right and wrong actions, and meta-ethics, which examines the nature of morality itself. Key concepts discussed include moral cognitivism versus non-cognitivism, the role of intuitions in moral judgments, and various prescriptive and non-prescriptive approaches to ethical statements.

1. Meta Ethics Revision

2. Need to know
1. Divine Command Theory
2. Naturalism: Utilitarianism – right is what
causes pleasure, wrong is what causes pain
3. Non-naturalism: Intuitionism – moral values
are self-evident
4. Strengths and weaknesses of these ideas

3. Key terms
• First-order questions: questions raised by
normative ethics – about how we should
behave/what we should do.
• Second-order questions: meta-ethical
questions about the nature and purpose of
morality rather than content of morality

4. There are four kinds of ethics you can do:
• Descriptive – describes and compares the ethical norms in
different societies
• Normative – investigates the questions that arise when
considering how we ought to behave and what ethical
norms we should follow
• Applied – process of applying normative principles and
arguments to particular situations
• Meta – examines what moral language is about and how it
can be justified. Meta in Greek means ‘beyond’ so it is
going beyond our normative theories to ask the most
general questions e.g. what is the meaning of ‘good’ and
‘bad’

5. Normative Ethics v Meta Ethics
Normative Ethics Meta Ethics
Deals with what things are
right or wrong. They help
people to understand what is
right and moral and what is
wrong and immoral.
They tell people what to do
and what not to do.
‘This is a good gun’ – is the
gun morally good?
Deals with what it means to
claim that something is right or
wrong.
It is like a foreign language you
have to understand what the
word means to understand
what is being said.
‘This is a good gun’ – what do
we mean by using the word
good. (Is it good because it
fulfils its purpose or because I
approve of it?

6. Similarities & differences
Similarities
a) Understanding words
& concepts
b) Understanding why we
use certain words
c) Reasons behind
decisions
Differences
a) Meta is theoretical,
normative is a guide to
behaviour
b) Meta is more rigid than
normative. There is less
manoeuvrability in
defining words,
compared to applying
ethical theories.
c) Meta is more
philosophical

7. Do Ethical Statements have meaning?
COGNITIVISTS
Moral statements describe
the world .
They can be worked out
using the senses.
E.g. ‘Murder is wrong’ is
stated by observing the
effects of the action.
Objective (not influenced by
personal feelings)
NON-COGNIVITISTS
A moral statement is an
expression of a feeling.
They are not descriptive
and cannot be described as
true or false.
Subjective (based on or
influenced by personal
feelings)

8. Meta-ethics
Cognitive
Objective
Realist
Non- cognitivist
Subjective
Anti-realist

9. Meta-ethics
Ethical values are
cognitive/factual
Ethical
naturalism
Utilitarianism,
Situation Ethics,
Virtue Ethics,
Natural Law
Ethical values are
non-cognitive
Ethical non-
cognitivism
Emotivism
Ethical non-
naturalism
Intuitionism,
Divine
Command
Theory
Prescriptivism

10. Meta-ethical theories
• Ethical Naturalism
Morality is cognitive/factual;
good is real, objective and in
the world. It is found to be
in the facts about nature,
and/or the fact about
human nature (e.g.
Utilitarianism finds the facts
of morality in human
happiness/pleasure.
• Ethical non-naturalism
Morality is
cognitive/factual; good is
real but cannot be
defined; it is intuited
(intuitionism) or else is
revealed by a supernatural
source (God) so not found
in nature or human
nature.

11. Divine Command Theory
• Non-naturalist – moral facts are revealed by God
(through scripture and the Church). God is the
source of good.
• Many Protestant Christians follow DCT, believing it
is the only true source of moral authority.
• What God commands must be good, what he
forbids is evil.
• You should act in a way that reflects God’s will
• Link between God and humans (imago dei).
Commands revealed in (for instance) 10
Commandments and sermon on the mount).
• Calvin – there is nothing more sublime than God’s
will so whatever God commands must be good.
• Barth – all questions about good and evil were
settled by the death and resurrection of Jesus

12. Strengths and weaknesses of DCT
• Rules are universal
• Good, bad, right and wrong
are clearly defined by God
• There is an end goal of
following commands – life
after death
• God is a fair judge
• Ground moral behaviour of
religious people in the
teachings of their (factually
existing) God whose
commands MUST be good
• We cannot know that God gave
these commands – there are
too many issues with the text
of the Bible
• The Bible also contains
immoral commands (slavery
etc)
• Autonomy – DCT does not
allow for free moral choice
(obey and go to heaven or
disobey and go to hell)
• Euthyphro’s Dilemma – is
conduct right because the gods
command it, or do the gods
command it because it is right?

13. Ethical Naturalism
All ethical statements are
natural and can be verified.
If I want to know if euthanasia is
wrong, I look at the evidence
and test the truthfulness of the
statement. I could then argue
that as it ends the suffering of an
individual, it is therefore right.
If you can look at the world and
at people’s behaviour and can
deduce right from wrong from
them, you are an ethical
naturalist.
G.E. Moore – moral
statements cannot be
identified as either true or
false using evidence.
This would be a
NATURALISTIC FALLACY
(good cannot be defined).
Moving from a factual
objective statement to an
ethical statement of values
does not work

14. Utilitarianism (ethical naturalism –
morality is defined by facts about nature or
human nature)
• Bentham – nature has placed us all under two
sovereign masters, pain and pleasure, it is for
them to point out what we ought to do. Pleasure
is an intrinsic good, pain is an intrinsic evil
• Moral obligation to maximise pleasure and
minimise pain.
• Greatest happiness for greatest number
• John Stuart Mill – ‘higher’ cultural pleasures are
superior to lower (physical) ones

15. Strengths/weaknesses of ethical naturalism
Strengths
• Ethical values are seen as factual,
grounded in nature/human nature
• Right/wrong are objective so we
know what we are doing
• Gives us rules/guidelines
• We can be judged based on
whether we uphold or break the
rules
• Most people tend to follow one
naturalist theory or another –
some people say UK law and
politics are broadly utilitarian in
character anyway
Weaknesses
• Faces popular opposition
from ethical non-naturalism
• Moore was considered by
most philosophers at the
time to have destroyed
naturalism by his arguments
about the naturalistic fallacy
• Good may be undefinable
(Moore’s open question
argument)

16. Moore’s open question argument
• Attempt to show that good is undefinable
• E.g. a Utilitarian will seek to maximise pleasure
over pain, so that any action which gives a
balance of pleasure over pain is defined as ‘good’.
So if you ask a Utilitarian ‘this action maximises
utility, but is it good?’ she would have to answer
yes (a closed question). But we can always stand
back and ask an open question instead – ‘is it
good to bring about more pleasure than pain.’

17. Non-naturalism
Intuitionism
G.E. Moore
To avoid the Naturalistic Fallacy, Moore
decided Right acts are those that produce the
most good BUT goodness cannot be defined.
We cannot use our senses but we can use our
moral intuition.
We recognise goodness when we see it – ‘a
simple notion’.
‘We know what ‘yellow’ is and can recognise
it whenever it is seen, but we cannot actually
define yellow. In the same way, we know
what good is but we cannot actually define
it’. (Moore, Principia Ethica)
Naturalistic Fallacy – in many
ethical arguments people tend to
start with facts and then slip into
speaking of moral values without
making clear that they have
switched the basis on which they
were arguing = the failed attempt to
derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’

18. Intuitionism
• Our knowledge of right/wrong comes through
out fundamental moral intuitions
• Intuitions are beliefs that are not supported by
inference from other beliefs
• We can just sense something is the case –
torture of an innocent person is wrong
• E.g. the Trolley Problem

19. The trolley problem
At the heart of this problem is a clash between a utilitarian
assessment and a deeply held intuition that killing an
innocent person is wrong.
A big problem for intuitionism is how can it be true if there
is so much disagreement between what is right/wrong?

20. Intuitionism
W.D Ross
He agreed with Moore and Prichard by
saying that ‘right’ and ‘obligatory’ were as
indefinable as ‘good’.
He argued that certain types of actions were
right – prima facie duties.
Seven prima facie duties – fidelity,
reparation, gratitude, justice, helping others,
self-improvement, not harming others.
If these conflict, follow the one we think is
right in that situation. Intuitionism is how
people choose between conflicting duties.
However, he doesn’t say how we decide this.

21. Intuitionism
H.A Prichard
No definition can be given to the word
‘ought’ however everyone can recognise
when we ought to do a certain action.
Two types of thinking – reason (looks at
the facts if a situation) and intuition
(decides what to do).
However, due to the fact we have
different morals to each other, it is not
always appropriate to use intuition to
prove goodness.

22. Strengths/weaknesses of Intuitionism as a
non-naturalist theory
Strengths
• Everyone has moral
intuitions and tends to use
them whether recognised or
not
• Overcomes the problem of
naturalism that there is no
agreement about the ‘facts’
of ethics
• Realistic in admitting that
moral intuition is not perfect
and explains why we still
have disagreements
Weaknesses
• Does not explain how we come to
have intuitions about right and
wrong
• People may have different
intuitions but may not be able to
justify them. How do we choose
between such intuitions?
• Our intuitions may be
unconsciously influenced by
social norms (e.g. slavery)
• Ethical naturalists argue that
Moore was wrong – his ‘open
question’ does not destroy
naturalism

23. Emotivism– non cognitivist
A.J Ayer
Emotivism helps us understand moral
statements.
‘ethical terms do not serve only to express
feelings, They are calculated also to arouse
feeling, and so to stimulate action’.
Two kinds of meaningful statements –
analytic (all bachelors are unmarried men)
and synthetic (the Battle of Hastings was in
1066).
Ethical statements are not verifiable – they
can only be understood as a expression of
feelings.
Boo/Hurrah theory

24. Emotivism– non-cognitivist
C.L Stevenson
Book – Ethics and Language (1944)
Discussed the emotive meaning of words.
When making a moral judgement we are
offering our opinion on it but also trying to
influence others’ attitudes.
Ethical statements are therefore based on
emotions but ALSO on our experience of
the world and how we want it to be.
Ethical disagreements are disagreements
about fundamental principles.

25. Prescriptivism– non-cognitivist
R.M Hare
Ethical language is prescriptive. An ethical
statement says what ought to be done and
these are moral because they are universal.
Ethical statements do not state facts and are not
true or false, but are expressions of our will or
wishes.
IF we use the word ‘good’ in a moral sense we
are using a set of standards that apply to a
person or action and we commend that person
or action.
If we say someone ought to do something, we
are saying that we ought to do it as well.

26. Prescriptivism:
Hare – moral
statements are
commands. Good is
what can be
universalised.
Stevenson – emotivism
expression of attitudes
based on beliefs
and a persuasive
argument intended
to influence others.
G.E. Moore
criticised naturalism.
Instead he said we
have an infallible
intuitive knowledge
of good things.
Naturalism:
Moral truths are
facts – can
be proved.
Intuitionism:
What is good?
Cannot be described,
like ‘yellow’, we
intuitively know
what good is.
Prescriptivism:
Hare – moral
statements are
commands. Good is
what can be
universalised.
Can Ethical Statements
be proven true or false?
Yes: Cognitivism: Moral statements
purport to state moral facts (aka realism).
No: Non-cognitivism:There are no ‘moral
beliefs’ (accepted by emotivists and
perscriptivists).
Cognitivist and Non-Cognitivist