Normative Ethics: Express Version

I. What are normative ethics?

Theories about what makes a moral statement true (or false). If we say "murder is wrong", then why is it wrong? What specifically makes it so? Why ought we not do it?

II. Three Main Theories

• Consequentialism (utilitarianism): Moral statements are defined by what brings the most happiness (or pleasure, etc) to the largest number of people. It focuses on the consequences of the act, rather than the act itself.
• Deontology: Moral statements are defined by the act itself, regardless of the consequences. So murder might still be wrong, even if it saves the lives of a very large number of people.
• Virtue ethics: Rather than specific rules like the above theories, virtue ethics theorizes that good habits of character determine morality, with an emphasis on moderation. E.g., too little courage results in a cowardly act, but too much courage results in rash behavior.

Meta-Ethics: Express Version

I. Questions about Moral Questions

Normative ethics asks, "What makes 'murder is wrong' a true statement? Happiness for the greatest number of people? Sense of duty?"

In contrast, meta-ethics asks, "What kind of statement is 'murder is wrong?' Does it even express a fact at all, or just a grunt of personal emotion?"

II.  "Murder is wrong" expresses a true (or false) fact

If moral statements express true or false statements, then this theory is called cognitivism. Cognitivism further splits into:

• Moral realism: Moral statements express facts about the world, independent of anyone's opinion or any group or societal opinion.
• Moral non-realism: While moral statements do express facts, they are just made true by subjective opinions of people, either at the individual or societal level.

III. "Murder is wrong" does not express a fact at all

Moral statements are just expressions of emotion, or of commands. This theory is called non-cognitivism. "Murder is wrong" really means "Blech! Murder!" or "Don't murder!" Note how neither one of these statements can be true or false.

For more details, please see the full article.

Meta-Ethics

I. What is Meta-Ethics?

Meta-ethics are questions about moral questions. In contrast, questions about what makes something morally wrong are questions of normative ethics. For example, "murder is wrong" might be true because it causes great misery for someone's family, or perhaps because it is a wrong act in itself. Those answers would be the domain of normative ethics, not the domain of meta-ethics.

Rather, meta-ethics asks: what kind of statement is, for example, "murder is wrong"? It might express:

• An objective fact about the world: "Murder is objectively wrong"
• A societal opinion: "Murder is made wrong by my society"
• Just a grunt of emotion: "Yuck! Murder!"

II. Cognitivism vs Non-Cognitivism

Meta-ethics divides into two main theories, based on whether a moral statement is capable of being true or false. Consider the above three versions of the moral statement that "murder is wrong."  The first two are capable of being true or false, and the last one is not:

• Capable of being true or false: "It is true that murder is objectively wrong", or "It is true that murder is made wrong by my society."
• Incapable of being true or false: "It is true that Yuck! Murder!" It might be true that you have that emotion, but it makes no sense to say that the emotion itself is true or false.

The theory that moral statements are capable of being true or false is called cognitivism. The opposing theory is called non-cognitivism.

III. Cognitivism

The theory that moral statements are capable of being true or false. Cognitivism further divides into two:

Moral Realism

A version of cognitivism that states that moral statements express a true fact about the world, independent of any human or societal opinion. There are two versions of moral realism:

• Naturalism: Moral statements are made true by a natural fact; the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, for example. Naturalism further divides into two subcategories:

• Reductionism: Moral facts are equivalent to some natural fact; for example: the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people
• Non-reductionism: Moral facts are brought about by a combination of natural facts, but is not equivalent to any one of them .

• Non-naturalism: Moral statements are true facts about the world alongside natural facts; "the sky is blue", "water is wet", and "murder is wrong", for example; not to be confused with "supernaturalism"

Moral Non-realism
The theory that moral statements are capable of being true or false, but do not express any objective fact about the world. They just express societal or individual opinions. There are two divisions:

• Ethical subjectivism: Moral statements are true or false, but are made so by society or an individual.
• Error theory: Moral statements are all false; we act like there is such a thing as morality, but there really isn't.

VI. Non-Cognitivism

Moral statements are not capable of being true or false. They express an emotion or a command:

• Emotivism: Moral statements express an emotion: "Yuck! Murder!"
• Prescriptivism: Moral statements express a command: "Don't murder!"