Introduction to meta ethics — AQA A-Level Religious Studies Revision

    An introduction to meta-ethics, focusing on the meaning of right and wrong through three specific theories: Divine Command Theory, Naturalism (Utilitariani

    Topic Synopsis

    An introduction to meta-ethics, focusing on the meaning of right and wrong through three specific theories: Divine Command Theory, Naturalism (Utilitarianism), and Non-naturalism (Intuitionism).

    Key Concepts & Core Principles

    Exam Tips & Revision Strategies

    Common Misconceptions & Mistakes to Avoid

    Examiner Marking Points

    Introduction to meta ethics

    AQA
    A-Level

    An introduction to meta-ethics, focusing on the meaning of right and wrong through three specific theories: Divine Command Theory, Naturalism (Utilitarianism), and Non-naturalism (Intuitionism).

    0
    Objectives
    3
    Exam Tips
    3
    Pitfalls
    0
    Key Terms
    5
    Mark Points

    Topic Overview

    Welcome to the fascinating world of meta-ethics! Unlike normative ethics, which asks 'What should I do?' (e.g., Is lying wrong?), or applied ethics, which tackles specific moral dilemmas (e.g., Is abortion morally permissible?), meta-ethics steps back and asks fundamental questions about the very nature of moral language, moral properties, and moral knowledge. It's the 'philosophy of ethics' – a deep dive into what we mean when we use words like 'good', 'bad', 'right', and 'wrong'. Do these words refer to objective truths, or are they merely expressions of personal feelings or cultural norms?

    Understanding meta-ethics is crucial because it underpins all other ethical discussions. If moral statements are simply expressions of emotion, then arguing about the 'rightness' of an action takes on a very different character than if moral statements refer to objective facts about the world. This field explores whether morality is something we discover (like scientific facts) or something we invent (like rules for a game). It delves into questions of moral realism (are there objective moral facts?) versus anti-realism (are moral facts mind-dependent or non-existent?), and cognitivism (can moral statements be true or false?) versus non-cognitivism (are moral statements not truth-apt?).

    For your AQA A-Level Religious Studies, an introduction to meta-ethics provides the foundational philosophical toolkit to critically analyse and evaluate various ethical theories and issues. It helps you grasp the philosophical assumptions behind different ethical stances, allowing for a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of moral debates. By exploring the nature of moral language and reality, you'll be better equipped to articulate your own reasoned positions and understand the profound implications of different meta-ethical perspectives on how we live and interact morally.

    Key Concepts

    Core ideas you must understand for this topic

    • →**Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism:** This is the core distinction. Cognitivists believe moral statements express beliefs that can be true or false (they are 'truth-apt'). Non-cognitivists argue moral statements do not express beliefs, but rather emotions, commands, or attitudes, and therefore cannot be true or false.
    • →**Moral Realism vs. Anti-Realism:** Realists believe there are objective moral facts that exist independently of human minds (e.g., 'murder is wrong' is a fact regardless of what anyone thinks). Anti-realists deny the existence of such objective moral facts, suggesting morality is mind-dependent or entirely constructed.
    • →**Naturalism (e.g., F.H. Bradley, Philippa Foot):** A cognitivist and realist view that moral properties are identical to or reducible to natural properties (e.g., 'good' means 'conducive to human flourishing'). Moral truths can be discovered through empirical observation or scientific inquiry.
    • →**Non-Naturalism (e.g., G.E. Moore's Intuitionism):** A cognitivist and realist view that moral properties are objective but not reducible to natural properties. Moore argued 'good' is a simple, unanalysable property, like the colour yellow, which we grasp through intuition. He famously introduced the 'naturalistic fallacy'.
    • →**Non-Cognitivism (e.g., A.J. Ayer's Emotivism, R.M. Hare's Prescriptivism):** Emotivism suggests moral statements are mere expressions of emotion ('Boo! Murder!') or attempts to influence others. Prescriptivism argues moral statements are universalisable commands or prescriptions ('Do not murder!'). Both deny moral statements have truth values.

    What You Need to Demonstrate

    Key skills and knowledge for this topic

    • Explanation of Divine Command Theory as the view that right is what God commands and wrong is what God forbids.
    • Explanation of Naturalism (Utilitarianism) as the view that right is what causes pleasure and wrong is what causes pain.
    • Explanation of Non-naturalism (Intuitionism) as the view that moral values are self-evident.
    • Analysis and evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of Divine Command Theory, Naturalism, and Non-naturalism.
    • Use of specialist terminology and scholarly views.

    Marking Points

    Key points examiners look for in your answers

    • Explanation of Divine Command Theory as the view that right is what God commands and wrong is what God forbids.
    • Explanation of Naturalism (Utilitarianism) as the view that right is what causes pleasure and wrong is what causes pain.
    • Explanation of Non-naturalism (Intuitionism) as the view that moral values are self-evident.
    • Analysis and evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of Divine Command Theory, Naturalism, and Non-naturalism.
    • Use of specialist terminology and scholarly views.

    Examiner Tips

    Expert advice for maximising your marks

    • 💡Ensure you can clearly distinguish between the three meta-ethical approaches.
    • 💡Focus on the 'meaning' of moral terms rather than just applying the theories to specific moral dilemmas.
    • 💡Use the prescribed scholars and theories to support your evaluation.
    • 💡**Define your terms precisely:** Meta-ethics is full of abstract concepts. Always start by clearly defining key terms like cognitivism, non-cognitivism, realism, anti-realism, naturalism, and non-naturalism. Show the examiner you understand the foundational distinctions before you delve into specific theories.
    • 💡**Illustrate with examples and apply criticism:** Don't just describe theories; use clear, concise examples to show how they work in practice. For instance, when discussing Emotivism, explain how 'Murder is wrong' becomes 'Boo! Murder!' or 'I disapprove of murder!'. Crucially, always follow your explanation with relevant criticisms and strengths for each theory, demonstrating analytical depth.
    • 💡**Compare and contrast effectively:** High-scoring answers often compare and contrast different meta-ethical positions. For example, explicitly highlight the differences between Naturalism and Non-Naturalism, or between Emotivism and Prescriptivism. Discussing how one theory addresses the weaknesses of another, or how they fundamentally disagree on the nature of moral language, showcases sophisticated understanding.

    Common Mistakes

    Pitfalls to avoid in your exam answers

    • Confusing meta-ethical theories with normative ethical theories.
    • Failing to address the specific definitions of right and wrong provided by each meta-ethical theory.
    • Lack of critical evaluation regarding the strengths and weaknesses of each theory.
    • **Confusing meta-ethics with normative ethics:** A common mistake is to think that a meta-ethical theory like Emotivism is telling you what actions are right or wrong. Emotivism isn't a guide for moral behaviour; it's a theory *about* the nature of moral language itself, explaining what people are doing *when* they make moral claims, not *which* claims are correct.
    • **Believing non-cognitivism means 'anything goes':** Students sometimes assume that if moral statements aren't objectively true or false, then there's no basis for morality, and therefore all actions are equally permissible. This is incorrect. Non-cognitivist theories like Prescriptivism still acknowledge that moral language serves a vital function in guiding behaviour and expressing attitudes, even if it doesn't refer to objective facts. We can still have strong moral convictions and reasons for them, even if those reasons aren't 'objective truths'.
    • **Misunderstanding the 'naturalistic fallacy':** G.E. Moore's naturalistic fallacy isn't about deriving an 'ought' from an 'is' (that's Hume's Guillotine). Instead, it's the error of defining 'good' in terms of some natural property (e.g., 'good is pleasure'). Moore argued that if 'good' could be defined, then the question 'Is pleasure good?' would be meaningless, which it clearly isn't. The fallacy is about misidentifying the simple, indefinable property of 'good'.

    Revision Plan

    How to revise this topic in 1–2 weeks

    1. 1**Week 1, Day 1-2: Foundations and Naturalism.** Begin by defining meta-ethics, distinguishing it from normative and applied ethics. Focus on the cognitivist/non-cognitivist and realist/anti-realist distinctions. Then, dive into Moral Naturalism, understanding its core claims and examining examples like F.H. Bradley's ethical naturalism or Philippa Foot's natural goodness, noting their strengths and weaknesses.
    2. 2**Week 1, Day 3-4: Non-Naturalism (Intuitionism).** Shift to G.E. Moore's ethical non-naturalism, specifically his Intuitionism. Understand his argument that 'good' is a simple, indefinable property, and critically analyse his 'naturalistic fallacy'. Explore the strengths of intuitionism (e.g., accounts for moral disagreements) and its weaknesses (e.g., how do we know our intuitions are correct?).
    3. 3**Week 2, Day 1-2: Non-Cognitivism (Emotivism).** Explore the rise of non-cognitivism, particularly A.J. Ayer's Emotivism and C.L. Stevenson's developments. Understand how Emotivism interprets moral statements as expressions of emotion or attempts to persuade. Critically evaluate its strengths (e.g., explains moral disagreement as clashes of attitude) and weaknesses (e.g., reduces moral debate to mere shouting).
    4. 4**Week 2, Day 3-4: Non-Cognitivism (Prescriptivism) and Synthesis.** Study R.M. Hare's Prescriptivism, understanding how it views moral statements as universalisable commands. Compare and contrast Prescriptivism with Emotivism. Finally, dedicate time to comparing and contrasting all the major meta-ethical theories you've studied, identifying their core agreements and disagreements, and preparing for essay questions.
    5. 5**Week 2, Day 5-7: Practice and Review.** Attempt several past paper questions on meta-ethics. Focus on structuring your arguments, using precise terminology, and providing balanced evaluations of each theory. Review your notes, paying special attention to areas where you feel less confident, and refine your understanding of criticisms and counter-arguments for each position.

    Exam Question Types

    How this topic typically appears in the exam

    • 📋**'Explain and illustrate...' questions:** These require you to clearly define a meta-ethical theory (e.g., Emotivism or Intuitionism) and provide examples to demonstrate your understanding. Advice: Be precise with definitions and use simple, relatable examples. Ensure you explain *how* the example demonstrates the theory's claims.
    • 📋**'Assess the view that...' questions:** These demand critical evaluation of a specific meta-ethical claim (e.g., 'Assess the view that moral statements are simply expressions of emotion'). Advice: Present both strengths and weaknesses of the view, referencing relevant philosophers. Conclude with a reasoned judgement on the extent to which the view is defensible.
    • 📋**'To what extent is...' questions:** Similar to 'Assess' questions, but often asking about the applicability or validity of a concept (e.g., 'To what extent is the naturalistic fallacy a convincing criticism of ethical naturalism?'). Advice: Explore different perspectives on the issue, weighing up the arguments for and against the 'extent' in question. A nuanced conclusion is key.
    • 📋**'Compare and contrast...' questions:** These require you to identify similarities and differences between two or more meta-ethical theories (e.g., 'Compare and contrast Naturalism and Non-Naturalism'). Advice: Use a comparative structure, discussing points of similarity and then points of difference, rather than describing one theory then the other. Focus on their core meta-ethical positions (cognitivism/non-cognitivism, realism/anti-realism).

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Common questions students ask about this topic

    Before You Start

    Prior knowledge that will help with this topic

    • •**Basic understanding of ethical language:** Familiarity with common ethical terms and concepts, such as 'right', 'wrong', 'duty', 'virtue', and 'consequence', will provide a solid foundation.
    • •**Introduction to normative ethics:** Having a general grasp of major normative ethical theories like Utilitarianism, Deontology, or Virtue Ethics will help you appreciate *why* meta-ethics asks its questions, as it examines the nature of the moral claims made within these theories.
    • •**Philosophical terminology:** A basic understanding of terms like 'objective', 'subjective', 'a priori', 'a posteriori', 'analytic', and 'synthetic' will be beneficial, as these are frequently used in meta-ethical discussions.

    Likely Command Words

    How questions on this topic are typically asked

    Explain
    Analyse
    Evaluate
    Assess

    Ready to test yourself?

    Practice questions tailored to this topic

    Related Topics in AQA A-Level Religious Studies

    2A Buddhism

    View Topic

    2B Christianity

    View Topic

    2C Hinduism

    View Topic

    2D Islam

    View Topic