Meta Ethics
Meta ethics analyzes the language used in ethical statements. Meta-ethics can be contrasted with
normative ethics (the attempt to work out which actions are right/wrong) and descriptive ethics (the
attempt to compare and describe moral behaviors). In simple terms, meta-ethics is concerned with
the question of what is the meaning (if any) of ‘goodness’?
● Absolutism: morals are fixed and are true regardless of culture or time.
● Relativism: opposite of absolutism; morals are relative to culture/ time/ context
Cognitivism
Cognitivism: moral truths exist and they can be proven; they are objective and exist universally
Non-cognitivism: moral truths do not exist and are relative/ subjective
Naturalism
Naturalism: A philosophical current that holds that matter is the ultimate reality. It believes that the
material world is the only real world and that it is governed by natural laws.
Naturalism links morality with scientific knowledge and believes that any moral claim can be proven
and there is a universal ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ to it.
It is opposed to idealism, as idealism holds the belief that the material world is not real. The material
world is just a copy of the real world, that is beyond this world (eg. Plato’s realm of forms)
Characteristics of naturalism:
● Moral are fixed absolute in the universe
● Every moral statement can be proven to be right or false by empirical evidence
● You can use both reason/ logic and sense experiences to prove something is right or wrong
● Verification principle: something is true only if it can be proven
Our sense perceptions and principles of logic are the tools that a person uses to make moral
statements
, Bradley
“Statements are propositions: they are objectively either true or false” For Bradley, ethical statements
are facts and objective claims that are either true or false/ good or bad.
For him, something is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ depending on whether it helps us to live a satisfying life. Living a
satisfying life means being able to realize our station, our duties, and our function. We can learn what
it means to live a satisfying life by living in a society and observing the community.
For example: we can test whether ‘honesty is good’ by questioning whether this helps
us to live a satisfying life. If we conclude that it does help us realize our potential, then
we can conclude that honesty is good.
Criticisms:
● Bradley assumes that there is no social mobility and that classes in society are fixed. If all
people hold the same moral judgment and everybody has the same ideal of a ‘satisfying life’,
then there is no space for subjective and individual flourishing.
● You cannot derive a moral statement from the observation of a cause and effect: just because
eating ice-cream makes me happy, this does not mean that it is ‘good’ to eat it every day.
Criticism: Hume and the is/ ought problem
Hume claimed that we cannot move logically from a statement about the way the world is to a
statement about how we ought to act. He criticized naturalism because he asserted that naturalism
doesn’t explain the connection between ‘is’ and ‘ought’: if something ‘is’, why should I do it/ not do it?
Hume says that we can use the is/ ought problem with nonmoral facts, but you cannot use it with
moral facts:
● The water IS poisonous, so you OUGHT NOT to drink it (non-moral claim)
● The water IS poisonous, so you SHOULDN'T give it so someone (moral claim) - questionable
The is-ought problem exists because there is a gap between what we empirically know (an objective
statement) and what we perceive as morally good or bad (subjective statement).
People move too fast from a descriptive statement ‘this causes me pain’ to a normative statement
‘that is wrong’, without establishing what is wrong about pain. Good is pleasure and wrong is pain:
this is an objective statement. Nonetheless, Hume says that naturalists
Criticism
● Utilitarianism: If we understand good and bad with ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’, then it is
understandable why you shouldn’t give the poison to somebody, because giving them the
poison would give them pain and therefore it is ‘bad’.
Meta ethics analyzes the language used in ethical statements. Meta-ethics can be contrasted with
normative ethics (the attempt to work out which actions are right/wrong) and descriptive ethics (the
attempt to compare and describe moral behaviors). In simple terms, meta-ethics is concerned with
the question of what is the meaning (if any) of ‘goodness’?
● Absolutism: morals are fixed and are true regardless of culture or time.
● Relativism: opposite of absolutism; morals are relative to culture/ time/ context
Cognitivism
Cognitivism: moral truths exist and they can be proven; they are objective and exist universally
Non-cognitivism: moral truths do not exist and are relative/ subjective
Naturalism
Naturalism: A philosophical current that holds that matter is the ultimate reality. It believes that the
material world is the only real world and that it is governed by natural laws.
Naturalism links morality with scientific knowledge and believes that any moral claim can be proven
and there is a universal ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ to it.
It is opposed to idealism, as idealism holds the belief that the material world is not real. The material
world is just a copy of the real world, that is beyond this world (eg. Plato’s realm of forms)
Characteristics of naturalism:
● Moral are fixed absolute in the universe
● Every moral statement can be proven to be right or false by empirical evidence
● You can use both reason/ logic and sense experiences to prove something is right or wrong
● Verification principle: something is true only if it can be proven
Our sense perceptions and principles of logic are the tools that a person uses to make moral
statements
, Bradley
“Statements are propositions: they are objectively either true or false” For Bradley, ethical statements
are facts and objective claims that are either true or false/ good or bad.
For him, something is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ depending on whether it helps us to live a satisfying life. Living a
satisfying life means being able to realize our station, our duties, and our function. We can learn what
it means to live a satisfying life by living in a society and observing the community.
For example: we can test whether ‘honesty is good’ by questioning whether this helps
us to live a satisfying life. If we conclude that it does help us realize our potential, then
we can conclude that honesty is good.
Criticisms:
● Bradley assumes that there is no social mobility and that classes in society are fixed. If all
people hold the same moral judgment and everybody has the same ideal of a ‘satisfying life’,
then there is no space for subjective and individual flourishing.
● You cannot derive a moral statement from the observation of a cause and effect: just because
eating ice-cream makes me happy, this does not mean that it is ‘good’ to eat it every day.
Criticism: Hume and the is/ ought problem
Hume claimed that we cannot move logically from a statement about the way the world is to a
statement about how we ought to act. He criticized naturalism because he asserted that naturalism
doesn’t explain the connection between ‘is’ and ‘ought’: if something ‘is’, why should I do it/ not do it?
Hume says that we can use the is/ ought problem with nonmoral facts, but you cannot use it with
moral facts:
● The water IS poisonous, so you OUGHT NOT to drink it (non-moral claim)
● The water IS poisonous, so you SHOULDN'T give it so someone (moral claim) - questionable
The is-ought problem exists because there is a gap between what we empirically know (an objective
statement) and what we perceive as morally good or bad (subjective statement).
People move too fast from a descriptive statement ‘this causes me pain’ to a normative statement
‘that is wrong’, without establishing what is wrong about pain. Good is pleasure and wrong is pain:
this is an objective statement. Nonetheless, Hume says that naturalists
Criticism
● Utilitarianism: If we understand good and bad with ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’, then it is
understandable why you shouldn’t give the poison to somebody, because giving them the
poison would give them pain and therefore it is ‘bad’.
