Ethics and religion: Introduction to meta ethics: the meaning of right and wrong — AQA A-Level Religious Studies
Ethics and religion: Introduction to meta ethics: the meaning of right and wrong explained
Ethics and religion: Introduction to meta ethics: the meaning of right and wrong covers 4 specification points, including Divine Command Theory – right is what God… and Utilitarianism – right is what causes….
Read the full explanation
Open a point below for its explanation and revision guidance.
Divine Command Theory – right is what God commands, wrong is what God forbids.
Divine Command Theory is a meta-ethical theory holding that an action is right because God commands it and wrong because God forbids it, so moral status depends on God's will rather than on independent standards. In meta-ethics it addresses what makes moral language true. A key issue is the Euthyphro dilemma: if actions are good because God commands them, goodness seems arbitrary; if God commands them because they are already good, goodness appears independent of God. Recognise the theory's core claim, its theistic grounding, and the main objection when selecting an answer.
Naturalism: Utilitarianism – right is what causes pleasure, wrong is what causes pain.
Naturalism holds that moral terms can be defined by, or reduced to, features of the natural world that can be observed and investigated. Utilitarianism is the classic example used in meta ethics: it treats 'right' as whatever produces pleasure (or happiness) and 'wrong' as whatever produces pain. So a utilitarian claim such as 'this action is right' is being analysed as a factual claim about consequences, in the same way that 'this metal expands when heated' is a factual claim. The meta-ethical point is about meaning, not about whether the theory is correct: it says moral language describes natural properties. A strong answer distinguishes the definitional claim from the normative one, and notes that a critic may ask whether pleasure and pain alone capture all of morality.
Non-naturalism: Intuitionism – moral values are self-evident.
Non-naturalism holds that moral properties are not identical with any natural property such as pleasure or pain, so they cannot be defined by observation alone. Intuitionism, associated with G. E. Moore, is a non-naturalist position: it claims that basic moral values are self-evident and are grasped by a kind of moral intuition rather than by empirical investigation. On this view, 'good' is a simple, indefinable property, and we recognise it directly when we reflect carefully on a situation. The meta-ethical point concerns how moral knowledge is possible and what moral language refers to. A strong answer separates the claim that values are self-evident from the further claim that they are non-natural, and notes that critics ask how intuition can be checked or disputed.
The strengths and weaknesses of these ideas.
This criterion asks you to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the three meta-ethical ideas studied in this section: Divine Command Theory, Naturalism and Intuitionism. Take each in turn. For Divine Command Theory, consider that it grounds moral obligation in God's will and gives a clear basis for objective duty, but ask whether goodness is commanded because it is good or good because commanded, and whether morality depends on God's existence. For Naturalism, consider that it treats moral terms as reducible to natural facts such as happiness or flourishing, which suits empirical reasoning, but ask whether it commits the naturalistic fallacy by deriving ought from is. For Intuitionism, consider that it treats good as a simple, indefinable property grasped by moral intuition, which explains objectivity, but ask whether intuitions are reliable or verifiable.
Your focus
- State the core claim of Divine Command Theory accurately.
- Explain the Euthyphro dilemma as an objection to the theory.
- Distinguish Divine Command Theory from other ethical theories.
Show all 12 objectives
- State the naturalist claim that moral terms can be defined by natural properties.
- Explain how utilitarianism reduces right and wrong to pleasure and pain.
- Distinguish the meta-ethical claim about meaning from the normative claim about action.
- State the non-naturalist claim that moral properties are not natural properties.
- Explain why intuitionists describe basic moral values as self-evident.
- Distinguish intuitionism from naturalist accounts of moral language.
- Explain a strength and a weakness of Divine Command Theory, Naturalism and Intuitionism.
- Weigh the strengths of each meta-ethical idea against its weaknesses.
- Reach and justify a reasoned judgement about the meaning of right and wrong.
Ethics and religion: Introduction to meta ethics: the meaning of right and wrong exam tips
Marking Points
- States that right is what God commands and wrong is what God forbids, grounding morality in God's will.
- Identifies that moral status depends on God's command rather than on an independent standard of goodness.
- Recognises the Euthyphro dilemma as the central objection concerning arbitrariness or independence of goodness.
- Distinguishes Divine Command Theory from theories that ground morality in consequences or in human reason alone.
- Identifies naturalism as the view that moral terms can be defined by natural, observable properties.
- Explains that utilitarianism defines right action as the action producing pleasure or happiness and wrong action as the action producing pain.
- Shows that on this view a moral judgement is a factual claim about consequences rather than a separate, non-natural kind of statement.
- Distinguishes the meta-ethical claim about meaning from the normative claim about which actions are actually right.
- Recognises that the reduction of morality to pleasure and pain is open to challenge, for example over whether it captures all moral considerations.
- Identifies non-naturalism as the view that moral properties are not reducible to natural properties.
- Explains that intuitionism treats basic moral values as self-evident and known through moral intuition.
- Links the position to the idea that 'good' is a simple, indefinable property grasped directly rather than by observation.
- Distinguishes the claim that values are self-evident from the claim that they are non-natural, showing how the two fit together.
- Recognises that intuitionism faces the challenge of explaining how intuitions can be tested or why people disagree.
- Explains a strength of Divine Command Theory, such as grounding objective moral obligation in God's will, and weighs it against a weakness.
- Explains a strength of Naturalism, such as linking moral terms to observable natural facts, and weighs it against a weakness such as the naturalistic fallacy.
- Explains a strength of Intuitionism, such as treating good as a simple indefinable property, and weighs it against a weakness such as the reliability of intuition.
- Reaches a reasoned overall judgement about which idea best accounts for the meaning of right and wrong, supporting the conclusion with argument rather than assertion.
Examiner Tips
- 💡Read the stem for the key phrase 'God commands' to identify the theory.
- 💡Eliminate options that ground morality in consequences or reason alone.
- 💡Recall the Euthyphro dilemma when an option raises arbitrariness or independence.
- 💡Check whether the option describes a meta-ethical claim rather than a normative rule.
- 💡Read the stem for the word 'meaning' or 'define' to spot that the question is about meta ethics, not applied ethics.
- 💡Link the definition directly to pleasure and pain, since the option that mentions both is usually the naturalist one.
- 💡Eliminate options that describe moral values as self-evident or non-natural, because those belong to intuitionism.
- 💡Look for the words 'self-evident' or 'intuition' in the stem to identify the intuitionist option.
- 💡Rule out options that define good by pleasure or pain, since those describe naturalism.
- 💡Check whether the option keeps moral values separate from natural properties, which is the non-naturalist marker.
- 💡Name each theory explicitly and state its core claim before evaluating it, so the examiner can see which idea you are assessing.
- 💡Pair every strength with a specific weakness and explain the tension between them rather than listing them separately.
- 💡End with a clear judgement that answers the question about strengths and weaknesses, showing why your conclusion follows from the argument.
Common Mistakes
- Confuses Divine Command Theory with natural moral law; distinguish command-based morality from reason-based precepts.
- Assumes the theory makes morality arbitrary without engaging the Euthyphro dilemma; explain the dilemma's two horns.
- Treats the theory as a normative rule list rather than a meta-ethical account of what makes actions right.
- Ignores the theistic grounding; state that God's command is the source of moral status.
- Confuses the meta-ethical claim about meaning with the normative claim about which actions are right; keep the two levels distinct.
- Treats naturalism as identical with utilitarianism; present utilitarianism as one example of a naturalist analysis.
- Assumes the statement proves utilitarianism is true; note that it defines moral terms rather than settling the moral debate.
- Treats intuitionism as a form of naturalism; keep it clearly on the non-naturalist side.
- Assumes 'self-evident' means obvious to everyone; explain that it means known directly without inference.
- Confuses moral intuition with a feeling or guess; present it as a claimed form of direct moral awareness.
- Confuses the three ideas by attributing the naturalistic fallacy to Intuitionism; keep each theory's distinctive claim and its own weakness separate.
- Lists strengths and weaknesses without weighing them; connect each strength to a counter-weakness and use that comparison to build a judgement.
- Treats a weakness as decisive without considering a possible reply; assess whether the theory can answer the objection before concluding.