Metaethics

Metaethics focuses on the language and meaning of ethical terms like 'good' and 'bad,' rather than prescribing moral actions like normative ethics. The word 'meta' means 'beyond,' indicating its focus on defining ethical language itself.

Metaethics is divided into cognitive and non-cognitive categories. Cognitive ethics posits that morality is objective, factual, and knowable, with moral statements being objectively true or false. Non-cognitive ethics, conversely, views moral statements as subjective, not factual, and thus not subject to truth or falsity.

Naturalist cognitive ethics argues that moral statements can be reduced to natural, empirically verifiable statements, often linking 'good' to pleasure and 'bad' to pain, as seen in utilitarianism. This approach suggests a scientific way to verify moral claims.

G.E. Moore's open question argument challenges naturalism, stating that reducing moral properties to natural ones commits a naturalistic fallacy. If a natural property like pleasure were synonymous with 'good,' it would be meaningless to ask if pleasure is good, but since it's not meaningless, such a reduction is flawed.

Moore's non-naturalist approach, intuitionism, suggests objective moral truths exist but are recognized through intuition rather than natural properties. He likened it to recognizing the color green, where 'good' can be identified but not defined.

A significant problem with cognitive ethics is the existence of moral dilemmas and disagreements. If morality is objectively knowable and factual, there should be universal agreement, which is not observed in reality.

Emotivism, developed by A.J. Ayer, posits that moral statements are meaningless in terms of truth or falsity. Instead, they are expressions of personal emotion or feeling, labeling them as 'boo-hoo/hurrah' statements, signifying approval or disapproval.

R.M. Hare's prescriptivism, similar to emotivism, argues that moral language doesn't express facts but rather prescribes or recommends universal ways of acting. Saying 'stealing is wrong' means recommending that no one should steal.

While non-cognitivism explains moral disagreements, it also risks eliminating morality by making it purely subjective. This reduces complex moral reasoning to mere personal feelings, equating a statement like 'murder is wrong' with 'I dislike mayonnaise'.