Metaethics.

AO1 – 15 Prompts (Knowledge)

  1. What is the main difference between normative ethics and meta-ethics?

  2. What is Hume’s fact/value or is/ought problem?

  3. What are the three meta-ethical theories responding to the fact/value gap?

  4. What is the difference between cognitivism and non-cognitivism?

  5. How does Naturalism claim moral statements can be true or false?

  6. How does Aristotle define good and why is this naturalist?

  7. How does Aquinas define good?

  8. How does Bentham define good and why is this naturalist?

  9. Why is evolutionary morality a form of ethical naturalism?

  10. What does ethical absolutism claim and how does Kant illustrate it?

  11. How can utilitarianism be both absolutist and non-absolutist?

  12. Why is utilitarianism absolutist in general but not in specific actions?

  13. Why do naturalists claim “good” is a natural quality?

  14. Why do non-cognitivists and Moore argue good is not a natural quality?

  15. How does Moore use the colour analogy to explain intuition?

  16. How does Intuitionism explain moral blindness?

AO2 – 15 Prompts (Evaluation)

  1. How does Prichard explain how we know moral obligations?

  2. What are Ross’s prima facie duties and how do they guide decisions?

  3. Why can’t goodness be reduced to natural properties according to Moore?

  4. Why does intuitionism struggle with resolving moral disagreements?

  5. How do teleological theories argue we know what is good?

  6. Why does Augustine say humans can’t truly know the good?

  7. How does emotivism differ from naturalism and intuitionism?

  8. What does Ayer’s Boo-Hurrah theory claim about moral statements?

  9. How does emotivism change the meaning of the word “good”?

  10. Why does emotivism remove objectivity from statements like “murder is wrong”?

  11. Why does emotivism make morality seem completely relative?

  12. How does emotivism connect to moral relativism and why is that a problem?

  13. Why do naturalists, intuitionists, and Wittgenstein think ethical language is meaningful?

  14. Why do verificationists, Hume, Ayer, and emotivists claim ethical terms aren’t meaningful?

  15. What are the main advantages and disadvantages of ethical naturalism, intuitionism, and emotivism?

AO1 ANSWER SHEET

1. Normative ethics looks at what actions we should take, while meta-ethics examines the meaning of moral statements and whether goodness can be defined or is factual or emotional.

2. Hume said there’s a clear difference between facts (what is) and values (what ought to be), and philosophers wrongly move from facts to moral claims. Moral judgements can’t be based on facts or reason because right and wrong are value-based.

3. Naturalism sees good as a natural quality, intuitionism says we know good a priori, and emotivism says moral statements express emotion.

4. Cognitivists see moral facts as objective and true/false; non-cognitivists say moral statements express feelings or commands, not facts.

5. Naturalism treats ethical statements as factual and verifiable, like checking evidence to see if something reduces suffering.

6. Aristotle argues everything has a telos and something is good if it fulfils its purpose; goodness is a natural, observable quality.

7. Aquinas says all things have some goodness and humans use reason (synderesis) to follow primary precepts; goodness comes from following real goods over apparent goods.

8. Bentham defines good as happiness; situations producing more happiness are morally better, so goodness equals a natural psychological state.

9. Evolutionary morality sees good as whatever increases survival advantage, e.g., cooperation or eyesight, so good is a natural property.

10. Absolutism says actions are always right or wrong; Kant says you should never lie or break promises because duties are absolute.

11. Utilitarianism is absolutist in its aim (always maximise happiness) but not in specific actions, which depend on the situation.

12. Utilitarianism is absolutist in its general aim but situational in specific acts like lying or killing, which may be required.

13. Naturalists say good is a natural property found in the world and ethical claims can be checked with evidence; good links to pleasure or happiness.

14. Moore says goodness is like yellow: a non-natural property we recognise intuitively but can’t define, like someone colour-blind not seeing yellow.

15. Intuitionism says immoral people have impaired moral intuition and can’t recognise goodness; moral persuasion doesn’t work because goodness can only be intuited.

AO2 ANSWER SHEET

16. Prichard says goodness and obligation are indefinable; we inherently know what we ought to do, and when duties conflict we follow the greater one through intuition.

17. Ross says prima facie duties (fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement, non-maleficence) are obviously right at first glance and we follow whichever is greater.

18. Moore argues good can’t be reduced to natural properties because the naturalistic fallacy makes it always an open question whether pleasure or happiness really is good.

19. Intuitionism can’t resolve moral disagreements because goodness is only “seen,” so there’s no objective method; people can have totally opposite intuitions.

20. Teleological theories say good is known through outcomes: loving results (Situation Ethics) or maximising happiness (Utilitarianism).

21. Augustine argues humans are corrupted by original sin and dominated by lust, so we cannot truly know what is good.

22. Emotivism says ethical statements aren’t factual but express feelings, unlike naturalism or intuitionism which treat moral claims as facts.

23. Ayer says ethical statements can’t be verified and are meaningless; “theft is wrong” is just “I disapprove of theft,” like shouting Boo or Hurrah.

24. Emotivism says “good” expresses attitudes, not properties; saying “happiness is good” just shows approval, not a fact.

25. Emotivism removes objectivity because “murder is wrong” just expresses emotion, so someone approving murder is equally valid emotionally.

26. Emotivism makes morality relative to feelings, meaning even extreme attitudes (like Dylann Roof saying racism is good) count as expressions of emotion.

27. Emotivism links to relativism because right and wrong vary by feelings; this clashes with the idea some actions are objectively moral.

28. Naturalism, intuitionism, and Wittgenstein argue ethical language is meaningful either because it links to natural properties, is intuited, or gains meaning through language games.

29. Verificationists, Hume, Ayer, and emotivists say ethical terms aren’t meaningful because they can’t be verified and only express attitudes.

30. Advantages/disadvantages:
– Naturalism: clear, links morality to happiness and science, but happiness isn’t always good and it’s only absolutist in general.
– Intuitionism: explains moral blindness and common agreement, but intuitions can be dangerous and can’t resolve disagreements.
– Emotivism: explains emotional motivation and keeps morality meaningful, but makes morality relative and can’t explain why some feelings are wrong.