Overview of Meta-Ethics (AQA A-Level Religious Studies): Revision Notes
Overview of Meta-Ethics
What is meta-ethics?
Meta-ethics is the branch of ethics that examines what moral language means and how it can be justified. The word 'meta' comes from Greek, meaning 'beyond'. Meta-ethics goes beyond asking what is right or wrong to ask more fundamental questions about moral language itself.
The prefix 'meta-' appears in many academic disciplines (metaphysics, metalanguage, metacognition) and always indicates a study that examines the subject itself rather than engaging directly with it. In ethics, this means we step back from moral questions to examine the nature of morality itself.
Key questions in meta-ethics:
- What do we mean when we say something is 'good' or 'bad'?
- What do we mean by 'right' and 'wrong'?
- How can we justify moral statements?
- Are moral values facts or something else?
- Do we discover moral rules or create them?
The four types of ethics
To understand meta-ethics, it helps to see where it fits within the broader study of ethics. There are four main types:
Descriptive ethics
Descriptive ethics describes and compares the ethical norms in different societies. It is a factual account of how people actually behave.
Examples:
- What do Italians think about crime and punishment?
- What did the British think about slavery in the seventeenth century?
Descriptive ethics does not judge whether behaviour is right or wrong. It simply presents the facts about what people believe and do. The fact that various societies have practised cannibalism throughout history is descriptive; it does not tell us whether cannibalism is right or wrong.
Normative ethics
Normative ethics investigates how we ought to behave. It asks what things are good or bad, and what moral behaviour is right or wrong.
Key features:
- Addresses 'ought' questions: How should we behave?
- Provides moral theories to guide behaviour
- Examples of normative theories include:
- Divine Command Theory
- Utilitarianism
- Situation Ethics
- Kantian Ethics
- Natural Law
Example: Descriptive vs Normative
Saying 'most people in desperate need are prepared to steal food' is descriptive - it describes what people do.
Asking 'is it right or wrong to steal food when starving?' is a normative question - it asks what people ought to do.
Applied ethics
Applied ethics is the process of applying normative principles to particular situations and difficult moral questions.
Areas of applied ethics:
- Medical ethics
- Business ethics
- Legal ethics
- Animal ethics
Practical issues:
- Abortion
- Euthanasia
- Capital punishment
- Conduct of war
Applied ethics is essentially a branch of normative ethics because it recommends how we should behave in specific circumstances. It also helps test whether normative theories produce sensible answers to real moral questions.
Example: Applying Multiple Approaches to Euthanasia
A discussion of euthanasia might include:
- Descriptive information: which nations have legalised it, what procedures they use
- Professional rules: the Hippocratic Oath
- Normative theories: Kantian ethics, Utilitarianism to determine whether euthanasia is right or wrong
This shows how all types of ethics can inform a single moral question.
Meta-ethics
Meta-ethics examines what moral language is about and how it can be justified. It asks the most general questions about morality itself.
Central concerns:
- What is the meaning of moral terms like 'good', 'bad', 'right', 'wrong'?
- Can we be certain about moral questions?
- Is moral language just expressing our preferences or emotions?
- What is the relationship between moral values and facts?
- Do we know what is right through reasoning or intuition?
First-order and second-order questions
Understanding the distinction between first-order and second-order questions is crucial in meta-ethics.
First-order questions
First-order questions are raised by normative ethics. They ask about how we should behave and what we should do.
Examples:
- Should we hang murderers?
- Is abortion morally acceptable?
- What is the right thing to do in this situation?
Second-order questions
Second-order questions are meta-ethical questions about the nature and purpose of morality itself. They are questions about first-order questions.
Examples:
- What do we mean when we say something is 'good'?
- How can we justify calling an action 'right' or 'wrong'?
- Are moral statements facts or something else?
Critical Distinction
Meta-ethics uses second-order language: whereas an ethical statement concerns what is right or wrong, a meta-ethical statement is about what it means to claim that something is right or wrong.
Think of it this way:
- First-order: "What should I DO?"
- Second-order: "What does 'should' MEAN?"
Two types of meta-ethical questions
Meta-ethical questions fall into two categories:
-
Questions about what moral language means
- What are we actually saying when we use words like 'good', 'bad', 'right', or 'wrong'?
- Are we describing facts about the world or expressing something else?
-
Questions about how moral statements may be justified
- How do we know if a moral claim is true or correct?
- What makes a moral statement valid?
These two types of questions are interconnected. By trying to justify moral claims, we discover what we are really doing when we use moral language. By considering the meaning of moral language, we understand the basis for justifying its claims.
Three approaches to meta-ethics
There are three main approaches to defining what we mean by 'good' and how we judge the validity of ethical statements:
Ethical naturalism
Ethical naturalism holds that moral properties are natural properties that can be observed in the world. Moral claims can be verified through natural facts.
Example: Utilitarianism as Naturalism
Utilitarianism is a naturalist theory because it defines moral terms using natural, observable properties:
- Right means what causes pleasure
- Wrong means what causes pain
- These are observable, natural facts that can be measured and verified
Ethical non-naturalism
Ethical non-naturalism agrees that moral claims are about facts, but argues these facts are not natural properties. Moral values exist but cannot be reduced to observable natural facts.
Example: Intuitionism as Non-Naturalism
Intuitionism is a non-naturalist theory because:
- Moral values are self-evident
- We know them through intuition rather than observation
- They are real but not natural facts we can measure
Ethical non-cognitivism
Ethical non-cognitivism holds that we cannot know moral facts at all. Moral claims are not about facts but are expressions of our emotions, wishes, or prescriptions.
Cognitive vs Non-Cognitive Theories
This is a fundamental distinction in meta-ethics:
Cognitive theories (naturalism and non-naturalism):
- Explain moral language in terms of moral facts we can know
- Moral statements can be true or false
- We can have moral knowledge
Non-cognitive theories (non-cognitivism):
- Argue we cannot know moral facts
- Moral language expresses emotions, preferences, or prescriptions
- Moral statements are not fact-based claims
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
Meta-ethics examines the meaning and justification of moral language, asking 'What do we mean?' and 'How do we know?' about moral claims.
-
Four types of ethics: Descriptive (describes behaviour), Normative (prescribes behaviour), Applied (applies principles to situations), Meta-ethics (examines moral language).
-
First-order questions ask what we should do; second-order questions ask what moral terms mean and how they can be justified.
-
Three meta-ethical approaches: Naturalism (moral facts are natural), Non-naturalism (moral facts are not natural), Non-cognitivism (moral language is not about facts).
-
Religious ethics grounds morality in God's commands, while secular ethics bases morality on human reason and values.