Lesson 1: What is meta-ethics?
Normative ethics: ethical theories which try to show you what is right and wrong e.g.
utilitarianism
Meta-ethics: the study of ethical language, which tries to explain what words like
good, bad, right and wrong mean.
Libby Ahluwalia
Normative ethics focuses on the principles and rules, such as utilitarianism or natural
law, that guide how we should behave. Meta-ethics, on the other hand, examines the
meaning and use of moral language, questioning what we mean by terms like “good”
and whether moral statements express feelings, recommend actions, or describe
objective facts. It explores whether people share the same understanding of ethical
terms, as disagreement on meaning can make moral debate ineffective.
Cognitive language: when language expresses the propositions which can be known
to be true or false.
Non-cognitive language: when language is used to express opinions, asks questions,
give directions, etc, and so cannot be judged as true or false.
If ethical language is seen as cognitive, it is believed to be expressing factual moral
statements. This suggests what is right and wrong is an objective truth with little room
for differing opinions.
If ethical language is seen as non-cognitive, it is about expressing something other
than facts like values and beliefs. This suggests what is right and wrong cannot be
proved, when people talk about morality, they are expressing their own subjective
views.
, Lesson 2: Naturalism
Natural properties (things we can empirically observe)
Ethical Naturalists are moral realists, believing ethical statements can be objectively
true or false. They see moral terms like “good” and “wrong” as describing natural
properties in the world, such as maximising human welfare or reducing suffering. For
example, if “good” means maximising welfare, then using slave labour in unsafe
conditions for cheap clothes would be morally wrong because it increases suffering.
Ethical Naturalists replace theological ideas of “good” and “evil” with natural
properties, similar to Utilitarianism, which defines good in terms of pleasure and pain.
This assumes a Cognitivist view—that moral sentences express propositions that can
be factually true or false.
In practice, movements like effective altruism apply this by using evidence, research,
and data to determine the best use of resources to prevent suffering and save lives.
Websites like givewell.org measure “good” by the number of lives saved and
reduction of suffering per dollar spent, using tools from accountancy, social science,
and data analysis to treat moral facts as facts of nature.
FH Bradley
- Argued that to be good is to try to make the world a better place for ourselves
and others.
- Everyone can do this by contributing to society in a way that is appropriate to
their position in society.
- By fulfilling duties society expects us to we make positive contribution and
realise our own potential
- When we don’t do this, we are disappointed and feel shameful for not living up
to these expectations.
Is it realistic to argue that our own personal satisfaction is intrinsically
linked to the contribution we make to society?
Yes, because contributing positively to society can give people a sense of purpose,
belonging, and achievement, which often leads to greater personal satisfaction.
However, it might not be universal, as some people seek satisfaction in purely self-
focused ways.
Would people who have a negative impact on society be less satisfied with
their life because of this?
Often yes, as guilt, social disapproval, and isolation can reduce life satisfaction;
Normative ethics: ethical theories which try to show you what is right and wrong e.g.
utilitarianism
Meta-ethics: the study of ethical language, which tries to explain what words like
good, bad, right and wrong mean.
Libby Ahluwalia
Normative ethics focuses on the principles and rules, such as utilitarianism or natural
law, that guide how we should behave. Meta-ethics, on the other hand, examines the
meaning and use of moral language, questioning what we mean by terms like “good”
and whether moral statements express feelings, recommend actions, or describe
objective facts. It explores whether people share the same understanding of ethical
terms, as disagreement on meaning can make moral debate ineffective.
Cognitive language: when language expresses the propositions which can be known
to be true or false.
Non-cognitive language: when language is used to express opinions, asks questions,
give directions, etc, and so cannot be judged as true or false.
If ethical language is seen as cognitive, it is believed to be expressing factual moral
statements. This suggests what is right and wrong is an objective truth with little room
for differing opinions.
If ethical language is seen as non-cognitive, it is about expressing something other
than facts like values and beliefs. This suggests what is right and wrong cannot be
proved, when people talk about morality, they are expressing their own subjective
views.
, Lesson 2: Naturalism
Natural properties (things we can empirically observe)
Ethical Naturalists are moral realists, believing ethical statements can be objectively
true or false. They see moral terms like “good” and “wrong” as describing natural
properties in the world, such as maximising human welfare or reducing suffering. For
example, if “good” means maximising welfare, then using slave labour in unsafe
conditions for cheap clothes would be morally wrong because it increases suffering.
Ethical Naturalists replace theological ideas of “good” and “evil” with natural
properties, similar to Utilitarianism, which defines good in terms of pleasure and pain.
This assumes a Cognitivist view—that moral sentences express propositions that can
be factually true or false.
In practice, movements like effective altruism apply this by using evidence, research,
and data to determine the best use of resources to prevent suffering and save lives.
Websites like givewell.org measure “good” by the number of lives saved and
reduction of suffering per dollar spent, using tools from accountancy, social science,
and data analysis to treat moral facts as facts of nature.
FH Bradley
- Argued that to be good is to try to make the world a better place for ourselves
and others.
- Everyone can do this by contributing to society in a way that is appropriate to
their position in society.
- By fulfilling duties society expects us to we make positive contribution and
realise our own potential
- When we don’t do this, we are disappointed and feel shameful for not living up
to these expectations.
Is it realistic to argue that our own personal satisfaction is intrinsically
linked to the contribution we make to society?
Yes, because contributing positively to society can give people a sense of purpose,
belonging, and achievement, which often leads to greater personal satisfaction.
However, it might not be universal, as some people seek satisfaction in purely self-
focused ways.
Would people who have a negative impact on society be less satisfied with
their life because of this?
Often yes, as guilt, social disapproval, and isolation can reduce life satisfaction;
