1. Meta-Ethics Objectives:
To grasp the general area of debate that meta-ethics covers.
To understand the meaning of key terms.
To understand and begin to evaluate naturalism.

2. In groups… Look at the question on your desk.
Do you agree with it? Explain to each other why/why not.
As a group, list arguments/examples/evidence for and against the statement.
Get ready to share your findings with the class.

3. Are moral judgements objective or subjective?

4. Is morality discovered or invented?

5. Are there any moral facts?

6. What is Meta-Ethics?
Ethical theories try to find out which actions are right/wrong. Meta-ethical theories try to say what right/wrong themselves mean. So, meta-ethics is the study of ethical language. “Ethical language” means the words good, bad, right and wrong.

7. Meta-Ethical Theories
Meta-Ethics consists of several different theories. They all claim to know what is meant by moral language.
We will be studying four of these theories.
First of all, we need to know some technical terms to describe them…

8. Cognitivism Non-Cognitivism
The view that moral judgements are propositions which are ‘truth- apt’ – they can be true or false. There are moral facts.
The view that moral judgements are not propositions, so they are not truth-apt. There are no moral facts.
What sort of language could moral judgements be, if they’re not propositions?

9. “Murder is wrong” Can this statement be true/false?
Is it true/false in the same way that other statements are?
Can you anticipate any problems with the claim that this statement is truth-apt?

10. Realism Anti-Realism What could these real things be?
The view that moral terms refer to something real in the world.
The view that moral terms do not refer to real things in the world, but to something else entirely.
What could these real things be?
If we say ‘right’ = x, what could x be?
What could these other things be?
If we say ‘right’ means x, but x is not a real thing, what could x be?

11. Meta-Ethical Theories
Realist and cognitivist
Anti-Realist and Non-cognitivist
Naturalism
Non-Naturalism
Emotivism
Prescriptivism
NB. Although the realist theories are also cognitivist, they do mean different things – make sure you are clear on the difference.

12. Quick check so far… Cognitivism Non-cognitivism Realism Anti-realism
Moral terms refer to real things in the world
Moral statements are not truth-apt
There are moral facts
Moral statements are truth-apt
Moral terms don’t refer to real things in the world
“killing is wrong” could be true
“wrongness” is a real thing
Cognitivism
Non-cognitivism
Realism
Anti-realism

13. Naturalism
Moral properties (good, bad, right and wrong) are actually natural properties (things that exist in the world).
Morality is part of the world, so there are moral facts just like there are natural facts.
Morals are not about ‘your point of view’ or ‘my opinion’ but are objectively true.
For example, a non-ethical statement, such as ‘the dog is in the garden’ can be verified by evidence (going and looking) so also an ethical statement such as ‘murder is wrong’ can be verified by evidence (someone is dead, people are unhappy/afraid, and so it is wrong.)
Moral terms can be defined as other things (so, good = x)

14. Examples of Naturalist ethical theories
Ethical Theory
Good / right = ??
Utilitarianism
Situation Ethics
Natural Moral Law

15. Are any of these good arguments? Why/ why not?
A foetus is a person
Therefore we shouldn’t kill foetuses
Murder is illegal
Therefore you shouldn’t kill people
You promised to help your gran
Therefore you should help your gran

16. Problems with Naturalism 1 – The Is-Ought Gap
The philosopher Hume argued that there is an important distinction between matters of fact and matters of value, between description and evaluation, between 'is' and 'ought'. He argues that we cannot slide from one to the other.
If we are giving descriptive premises, we can only come to a descriptive conclusion.
If we want to draw an evaluative conclusion, we need evaluative premises.

17. Descriptive or evaluative?
Murder is illegal
A foetus is a person
We shouldn’t kill foetuses
You shouldn’t kill people
You should help your gran
It’s wrong to hurt dogs
You promised to help your gran
Dogs can feel pain in the same way as humans

18. What would Hume say about these arguments?
A foetus is a person
Therefore we shouldn’t kill foetuses
Murder is illegal
Therefore morally you shouldn’t kill people
You promised to help your gran
Therefore you should help your gran

19. Problems with Naturalism 1 – The Is-Ought Gap
Naturalist theories all move from descriptive premises to evaluative conclusions. So naturalism is wrong.
Give an example from the ethical theories we’ve studied (utilitarianism, situation ethics or natural moral law)

20. Problems with Naturalism 2 – The Problem of the Open Question
An open question is one with more than one possible answer.
Which of these are open questions?...
Is that drink a beverage?
Is that drink hot?
Does your dog have 4 legs?
Is your dog a canine?
Is pleasure a good thing?
Does Sue have children?
Does your mother Sue have children?

21. “The Open Question” and definitions
Moore claims that if two words mean the same thing, then questions about them should be closed. If you can ask an open question about whether they mean the same thing, then they don’t mean the same thing – you can’t define one in terms of the other.

22. Problems with Naturalism 2 – The Problem of the Open Question
All naturalist theories define goodness in terms of something else. Moore says these are not real definitions, because they are always open questions. Eg. Utilitarianism “goodness = pleasure” We can ask “Is pleasure really good?” and this is an open question. People could disagree about the answer. This proves that pleasure is not the definition of good. They don’t mean the same thing.

23. Problems with Naturalism 3 – The Naturalistic Fallacy
The naturalistic fallacy is the mistake made by naturalists when they try to define the undefinable. Naturalists try to define goodness in terms of some other property. But goodness can’t be defined, so their definitions will always be faulty. (This is proved by the Open Question example.)

24. Explain the three problems with naturalism
Define these terms:
cognitivism
non-cognitivism
realism
anti-realism
What is naturalism?
Explain the three problems with naturalism