Card 3.1 · Root III — Ethics and Axiology

Meta-Ethics

When you say cruelty is wrong, what kind of statement are you making?

Meta-ethics asks what kind of thing a moral claim is — not whether an act is wrong, but what someone is doing when they say so.

From The Coordinates of Thought by Syed Raheel Shahzad, card 3.1, page 127

On this card

Where it sits
The rival answers
Key figures
Connections
On Coordinates of Thought

Where it sits

Root III Ethics and Axiology. Parent of 3.1.1 Moral Realism vs Anti-Realism, 3.1.2 Moral Semantics, 3.1.3 Moral Epistemology, 3.1.4 Moral Motivation. Borders 3.2 Normative Ethics, 2.1 Theories of Knowledge.

Narrower questions under this one:

The rival answers

Spectrum moral facts fully real → no moral facts at all

Position	Moral claims are	Are they ever true?
Non-natural realism	Reports of irreducible moral facts	Yes
Natural realism	Reports of stance-independent natural facts or properties	Yes
Theological voluntarism / divine command	Moral status or obligation depends, in the relevant respect, on divine will or command	Truth-apt on the theory
Natural law	Reports of what human nature requires	Yes
Constructivism	Reports of what an appropriate constructive or idealized rational procedure yields	Yes, in a constructed sense
Relativism	Claims whose truth or correctness is relative to a framework, standard or standpoint	True relative to that framework
Subjectivism	Claims whose truth or correctness is relative to an individual's attitudes or responses	True relative to the individual
Emotivism	Expressions of feeling, not reports	Not truth-apt
Prescriptivism	Disguised imperatives	Not truth-apt
Error theory	Reports of moral facts — which do not exist	Positive moral claims all false

Key figures

Figure	Dates	Tradition	Contribution
Plato	428–348 BCE	Greek	The Euthyphro question
Mencius	trad. c. 372–289 BCE	Chinese	Moral responses as natural to human beings
Xunzi	c. 310–after 238 BCE	Chinese	Morality as deliberate construction against nature
Al-Ash'ari	874–936	Islamic	Theological voluntarism: moral status depends on divine determination or command
Mu'tazili theologians	8th–early 11th c.	Islamic	Moral facts knowable by reason; God, being just, necessarily acts in accordance with them
David Hume	1711–1776	European modern	No ought from an is
G. E. Moore	1873–1958	Analytic	The open question argument
J. L. Mackie	1917–1981	Analytic	Error theory; the argument from queerness
Friedrich Nietzsche	1844–1900	German	Genealogy: asks how a value was produced, and by what kind of life, before asking whether it is true

Also on this question: Mou Zongsan

Connections

→ 3.1.1, 3.2 · ↔ 3.2.6, 2.5, 1.10, 6.1 · ◇ moral realism, natural law, constructivism, relativism, subjectivism, emotivism, prescriptivism, error theory, divine command · ○ Axial Age; Islamic golden age; Modern; Table 5

→ narrower questions · ↔ questions it borders · ◇ the positions, mapped in Part III of the book · ○ the eras and comparison tables (Parts IV and V)

The full card is in the book

In The Coordinates of Thought this card goes on to a worked example that sets the answers against one case, and to where the question touches daily life — page 127.

About the book Get the book

On Coordinates of Thought

Conversations about this question in Meta-ethics:

Join free to ask about it Everything in Meta-ethics