The first question is mostly aimed to define “what do the words good, bad, right, and wrong mean,” while the second one is about whether moral judgments are universal or relative. The third question is about “how can we know if something is right or wrong, if at all?”
According to Garner and Rosen, the responses to these questions "are not unrelated, and sometimes an answer to one will strongly suggest, or perhaps even entail, an answer to another."
The branch of Meta- ethics is divided into two parts: Moral Realism and Moral Anti- Realism.
Moral Realism
According to John Hoffman, “moral realism” is a claim that “moral facts” do really exist whereas they exist independently from our thoughts and “are a part of the fabric of the universe”.
Moral realism has three components which are: objective, cognitive, and metaphysical components.
Components of Moral Realism
The Objectivist element of moral realism is mostly concentrated on the “moral principles” which in their turn do not need a social approval and have objective validity. Objective element is something that everyone can agree on and that’s why it doesn’t need an approval of a society.
The following element of moral realism is Cognitive or “Cognitivist Element.” The definition of this element which I read from the article of Aracadia University says that cognitivist element is mostly about the moral principles that involve statements that can be evaluated as either true or false, and about which through thinking about the situation you can determine or differ a “right” from “wrong”. One of the professors of the Hankuk University, Shin Kim, says:
Cognitivism is the view that moral judgments are cognitive states just like ordinary beliefs. It is part of their function to describe the world accurately.
And the last element of moral realism is “Metaphysical Element”. Relying on this element we can derive that moral facts exist in reality but they exist beyond what we can observe with our immediate senses and this is done mostly in a logic-based way on meaning of terms rather than perceptions or observations.
Coming to the categories of Moral Realists, according to John Hoffman of Arcadia University, there are three categories: Theistic, Naturalistic, and No naturalistic.
Categories of Moral Realists
Theistic moral realists believe that moral values exist within God; they believe that morality depends on God’s will or reason, that God’s will is an objective fact within the universe. As an example for this category we can take the “Religious Ethics”.
Naturalistic moral realists believe that the moral values existing within the natural world are connected with specific properties such as pleasure and satisfaction which are in their turn objective facts in the world. For instance, egoism, utilitarianism, and virtue theory are good examples of “naturalistic moral realists”.
The last type of moral realists is Nonnaturalistics. This group of people accept as well that the moral facts do exist somewhere in the world or universe but are grounded in an nonnatural facts about the world. They believe that these facts can’t be observed or detected through scientific means.
The Concept of Moral Anti- Realism
James Gray defines Moral Anti- Realism in his philosophical dictionary as a rejection of moral realism. It is a belief that interior values don’t really exist as well as the moral facts. Nevertheless, some moral anti- realists believe that there are moral truths, but they wouldn’t be based on facts about the world. Instead they could be based on social contract or convention.
The moral anti- realism is divided into three groups: Moral Noncognitivism, Moral Error Theory, and Moral Subjectivism.
Components of Moral Anti- Realism
Moral Noncognitivism is a view where some part misses true and false judgments. In Meta- ethics noncognitivism belongs to an anti- realist who claims that moral judgments are neither true nor false. For example, emotivists believe that moral judgments are expressions of our emotions. Saying, “stealing is wrong,” might be expressing one’s frustration concerning stealing without saying it is literally true.
Error Theory is a view that claims that all moral facts are literally false because they don’t refer to anything. Nothing is right or wrong for them and has an interior value. For instance, an error theorist would claim that’s it is not true that “murder is wrong.” But at the same time he can approve “factionalism” or continue making moral statements for some other reasons.
Moral Subjectivism is a view that states that moral judgments follow on to the subjective states. For instance, “stealing is wrong” wouldn’t associate positively with a person who doesn’t like robberies and therefore this statement would be “true” for him, whereas to a person who likes stealing this statement would be rather “false”. When we give arguments for a moral position, we often think other people should agree with us because morality is “not just a matter of taste.” If subjectivism is true, then moral disagreement would be impossible, and moral justification would plausibly be irrational.
Conclusion
Concluding my essay, I would like to say that now having read different sources about meta- ethics I have a clear idea what it is about and have an answer to my main question of the essay- “What does the “Meta- ethics” mean and what is it all about?” To understand the concept of Meta- ethics I have used some sources from different educational institutions and sites. Being finished with section of Meta- ethics now I can proceed to the second branch of ethics- Normative Ethics.
by
ali-flex09 (student)
