Metaethics

Metaethics is an aspect of philosophy concerned with the study of ethics themselves. The discipline of metaethics seeks to answer three questions: the semantics question, the ontology question, and the epistemology question. Semantics entails the meaning of words. In the case of metaethics, the moral semantics question seeks to uncover what the meaning of "moral judgments" is. Ontology entails the nature of objects. In the case of metaethics, the moral ontology question seeks to answer what the nature of moral judgments is. Epistemology is a field of philosophy concerning the study of knowledge. The moral epistemology question seeks to answer how a person knows moral judgments, and how to justify the moral judgments. These questions have been addressed by every culture's individual philosophers, while later philosophers have refined and rejected the views of their predecessors.

Brief History

The discipline of metaethics began with the Greek philosophers Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. Their theories provided the foundation for the works of the philosophers of the Enlightenment, including Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, and René Descartes. Metaethics continued to be studied into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

The concept of moral relativism was first introduced by the ancient Greek philosophers. This theory asserts that each society has its own norms and rules regarding right and wrong, and there are no single, universal moral codes. Epistemological theories were also developed by the ancient Greeks. Plato taught that knowledge of morality is possible and that knowledge comes from a justified true belief. Skepticism, however, is a doctrine that entails a person is unable to have knowledge. Variations of skepticism have existed since the doctrine was first formulated during the time of the ancient Greeks. The Sophists of Greece are often said to be the first widespread group of skeptics. René Descartes attempted to develop a solution to skepticism.

Immanuel Kant attempted to determine whether it was possible to separate religion from ethics. He developed the ethical theory of the categorical imperative to show that it was possible. The categorical imperative entails that a person must act in such a way that others may act in the same way without creating a contradiction.

In the twenty-first century, philosophers are developing more nuanced theories of metaethics. The focus of the twenty-first study of metaethics revolves around the distinction of what good actions are, not as a facet of descriptive ethics but of the underlying theories of ethical behavior.

Topic Today

The questions raised within metaethics are still under contention. No one answer or theory has won all philosophers to its side. In the case of moral semantics, the reigning theories are moral realism, error theory, ethical subjectivism, emotivism, and universal prescriptivism. In the case of moral ontology, the theories are moral universalism, moral relativism, and moral nihilism. For moral epistemology, the theories in conflict include skepticism, empiricism, and institutionalism. Under metaethics, a person may endorse different theories for the semantic, ontological, and epistemological questions.

Moral realism is a theory that entails ethical claims are either true or false. Moral realism forces an individual to choose between competing moral claims, such as deciding if an action is right, wrong, or indifferent. Under moral realism, an act may not be right and wrong at the same time. Moral realism is the moral semantic theory that tends to be most intuitive. Error theory answers the moral semantic question by claiming that all moral judgments are wrong. The basis for this claim is that there are no moral truths. Error theory is often associated with moral nihilism. Ethical subjectivism is a middle ground between moral realism and error theory. The theory entails that only some moral statements express a truth value. Ethical subjectivism is not strongly endorsed by many philosophers as the theory invites vagueness, and the boundaries of its parameters are unclear. Emotivism is the theory that ethical claims do not express moral statements but merely the emotional states of the speaker. Emotivism is harshly criticized as a metaethical view concerning moral semantics, often on the ground that the theory does not reflect intuition regarding ethics. Universal prescriptivism is a theory that entails that claims are imperatives, that is, they are like commands. Proponents of the theory attach universality to the theory, as they feel that it reflects a global perspective on the nature of ethics.

There are three leading theories seeking to answer the moral ontology question. These theories reflect the spectrum of how to apply ethics: to all, to some, or to none. Moral universalism entails that ethical claims apply to each and every individual, regardless of their demographics. Under moral universalism, there is no distinction to be made on the grounds of gender, race, culture, or any other distinguishing characteristics. The mid-ground formulation to the question is moral relativism, which entails that ethical claims apply to only a specific group, often separated from another by culture, geographical boundaries, or social–political lines. Moral nihilism claims that there are no ethical positions that are more preferable to others. Most mainstream philosophers endorse a subset of moral universalism or moral nihilism. However, many object to moral nihilism on the grounds that it is not in line with intuition.

Three leading doctrines to answer the moral epistemological question are skepticism, empiricism, and intuitionism. Skepticism is the view that no one has any moral knowledge. Most moral skeptics also endorse epistemological skepticism, meaning no one has any knowledge of any proposition. Empiricism is the doctrine that knowledge is gained through observation and daily life experience. Under this doctrine, a person is justified in their beliefs as they have carried those actions out. Intuitionism is the doctrine that a person gains knowledge through intuition and that moral truths are only knowable via intuition.

Bibliography

Audi, Robert. The Good in the Right: A Theory of Intrinsic Value. Princeton University Press, 2004.

Brink, David. Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 1989.

DeLapp, Kevin M. “Metaethics.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, iep.utm.edu/metaethi. Accessed 25 Jan. 2025.

Fisher, Andrew. Metaethics: An Introduction. Routledge, 2014.

Joyce, Richard. The Myth of Morality. Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education, 2014.

Shafer-Landau, Russ. The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Moral Problems. Oxford University Press, 2014.

The Fundamentals of Ethics. Oxford University Press, 2014.

van Roojen, Mark. Metaethics: A Contemporary Introduction. Routledge, 2015.