Introduction to meta ethics — AQA A-Level Religious Studies

Meta-ethics is the philosophical study of the nature and meaning of moral language, exploring whether ethical statements are objective truths, subjective expressions, or something else. It examines concepts like 'good', 'right', and 'wrong' and underpins normative ethical theories in AQA A-Level Religious Studies.

Meta-ethics is a branch of ethics that investigates the nature of moral language and the foundations of moral values. Unlike normative ethics, which asks 'what should we do?', meta-ethics asks 'what do we mean when we say something is good or bad?' and 'do moral truths exist objectively?'. This topic is crucial for AQA A-Level Religious Studies as it provides a critical framework for evaluating all ethical theories, such as utilitarianism or Kantian ethics, by questioning their underlying assumptions.

The key debates in meta-ethics revolve around cognitivism versus non-cognitivism. Cognitivists believe that moral statements are truth-apt – they can be true or false – and include naturalism (e.g., F.H. Bradley) and intuitionism (e.g., G.E. Moore). Non-cognitivists, such as A.J. Ayer (emotivism) and R.M. Hare (prescriptivism), argue that moral statements are not about facts but express emotions or prescribe actions. Understanding these positions is essential for analysing the strengths and weaknesses of ethical theories in the exam.

Meta-ethics also explores the relationship between facts and values, famously highlighted by David Hume's 'is-ought gap' and Moore's 'naturalistic fallacy'. These concepts challenge the idea that we can derive moral conclusions from factual premises. By studying meta-ethics, students develop critical thinking skills, learning to evaluate the logical coherence of ethical arguments, which is a key skill for achieving top marks in A-Level Religious Studies.

• →Cognitivism: The view that moral statements are truth-apt and can be true or false, including naturalism and intuitionism.
• →Non-cognitivism: The view that moral statements are not truth-apt but express emotions (emotivism) or prescribe actions (prescriptivism).
• →Naturalism: The belief that moral terms can be defined in natural, non-moral terms, e.g., 'good' means 'pleasure' (utilitarianism).
• →Intuitionism: G.E. Moore's theory that 'good' is a simple, non-natural property known through intuition, and that moral truths are self-evident.
• →Naturalistic fallacy: The error of defining 'good' in natural terms, as argued by Moore, because 'good' is indefinable.

• 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.

• 💡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.
• 💡Use precise terminology: Always use terms like 'cognitivism', 'non-cognitivism', 'naturalism', 'intuitionism', 'emotivism', 'prescriptivism', 'naturalistic fallacy', and 'is-ought gap' to demonstrate knowledge.
• 💡Evaluate with scholars: Reference specific philosophers (e.g., Moore, Ayer, Hare, Hume) and their arguments to add depth and show critical analysis.
• 💡Structure your answers: For 12-mark questions, use a clear structure – define, explain, evaluate, and conclude. Ensure you address both sides of the argument before giving a justified judgement.

• 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.
• Misconception: Meta-ethics is about what actions are right or wrong. Correction: Meta-ethics is about the meaning of moral terms and whether moral judgments can be true or false, not about prescribing specific actions.
• Misconception: Emotivism and prescriptivism are the same. Correction: Emotivism (Ayer) says moral statements express emotions, while prescriptivism (Hare) says they are universal prescriptions (commands) that guide action.
• Misconception: The naturalistic fallacy means that 'good' cannot be defined at all. Correction: Moore argues that 'good' is indefinable in natural terms, but it can be known through intuition as a non-natural property.

1. 1Week 1: Focus on understanding the core concepts – cognitivism vs non-cognitivism, naturalism, intuitionism, emotivism, and prescriptivism. Create flashcards for key terms and definitions.
2. 2Week 2: Dive into the arguments – Moore's naturalistic fallacy, Hume's is-ought gap, and Ayer's verification principle. Practice explaining these in your own words.
3. 3Week 3: Evaluate each theory – list strengths and weaknesses for each, and consider how they apply to real-life moral dilemmas. Use past paper questions to practice.
4. 4Week 4: Consolidate by writing full essay plans for common questions, such as 'Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of emotivism' or 'Is meta-ethics useful for moral decision-making?'.

• 📋Explain questions (e.g., 'Explain the difference between cognitivism and non-cognitivism') – focus on clear definitions and examples.
• 📋Evaluate questions (e.g., 'Evaluate the claim that moral statements are not truth-apt') – present arguments for and against, and reach a justified conclusion.
• 📋Analysis questions (e.g., 'Analyse the strengths and weaknesses of intuitionism') – break down the theory and assess its coherence.
• 📋Application questions (e.g., 'How might a meta-ethicist respond to the issue of abortion?') – apply meta-ethical theories to a specific issue.