A-LEVEL PHILOSOPHY · AQA 7172 · PAPER 1Harlington School · Philosophy · Moral Philosophy

Meta-ethics

Normative ethics asks WHICH acts are wrong. Meta-ethics asks what 'wrong' MEANS — a fact, a feeling, an order — and whether anyone can be right.

The
big
question

When we say an action is wrong, are we stating a fact, expressing a feeling, or something else — and can we be right?

How it is examined: five questions — 3 · 5 · 5 · 12 · 25 marks. The Year 12 December test is Q01–Q04; the 25-mark essay is the Year 13 stretch. This unit's ladder ↓
02

The meta-ethical spectrum

The unit's positions, lined up. Tap a position to see what it claims and where it is strong or weak. If you can order them, you understand them.

'Wrong' names a FACT · realism'Wrong' lets out a FEELING · non-cognitivism

Tap a circle — or use Tab and Enter — to explore each position.

The thread that ties it together

Moral philosophy ran on one question in three sizes: what makes an act right, what to do in this case, and — now — what 'right' MEANS. This unit asks whether the first two questions ever had answers.

◀ Refer back · Aristotelian virtue ethics
Is the right act what the virtuous person would do?

Three theories told you WHAT is good. Each took it that 'good' names something. Today we ask whether it does — and Mill's proof is the first test.

Retrieve: Write Mill's proof in three lines. Underline the step where IS becomes OUGHT. Today decides whether that step is allowed.
The big idea

Going from left to right, 'wrong' first stops being a natural fact, then stops being a fact at all, then stops being a claim at all. The further right you go, the easier it is to explain why moral words MOVE us — and the harder to explain how anyone can be WRONG.

Look ahead · Year 13 — Metaphysics of God ▶
Can the existence of God be proved, and what would 'God' mean if it could?

Next year the same tools come back for religious language. Ayer's test attacks 'God exists' exactly as it attacked 'stealing is wrong'.

Prime: Write down: is 'God exists' a sentence that can be true or false? Keep your answer. You will have to defend it next year.
01

The lessons in this unit

5 lessons, taught in this order. The first is the map of the whole unit — this page mirrors it — and each lesson after it takes one part deeper. Timetabled for Track B · Autumn 1–2 · weeks 1–8. See the whole year plan ↗

Lesson 1 · week 1

The map: are moral judgements true or false at all?

Realism and anti-realism; cognitivism and non-cognitivism; the four positions.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 2 · week 1–2

Naturalism and Hume's is–ought

Utilitarian and Aristotelian naturalism; the is–ought gap; the Humean theory of motivation.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 3 · week 3–4

Moore: intuitionism and the open question

The naturalistic fallacy; the open question; disagreement.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 4 · week 5–6

Mackie's error theory

Relativity and queerness; what error theory cannot explain.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 5 · week 7–8

Emotivism and prescriptivism; the anti-realist issues

Ayer's verification; emotivism and Stevenson; Hare; the anti-realist issues — reasoning and embedding, progress, nihilism; the ladder.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
03

Four views of moral judgements, side by side

What are you doing when you say it is wrong? Meta-ethics questions that one thing. You can point at the red. Where is the wrong? Hume looked at a murder, listed everything he could see — and found no 'wrong' on the list, only his own feeling. So maybe 'wrong' does not point at anything at all. The answers come in two kinds. Kind one — realists: YES, 'wrong' names a fact. A natural fact, like pain (naturalism), or a special fact you can only sense (Moore). Kind two — anti-realists: NO, it names nothing. The sentence is a false belief (Mackie), or not a claim at all: a feeling (Ayer) or an order (Hare).

Kind one — a natural fact

Moral naturalism

'Wrong' points at a natural fact, like the pain an act causes — so a moral sentence is true when it gets the facts right.
1Realism: there are moral facts, whatever anyone thinks. Cognitivism: a moral sentence states one of them, so it is true or false.
2Naturalism: the facts are natural. Mill: good = what makes the most happiness. Aristotle: good = what helps a human flourish, as health helps a body.
3So ethics is like a science of people. We can be right or wrong, we can make progress, and when two people disagree, one of them has the facts wrong.
4Mill's 'proof' is the naturalist's argument: from what people DO desire, to what is DESIRABLE, to what we OUGHT to aim at.
Strength It is the simplest story. It explains why we argue about morals, why we can change our minds, and why abolishing slavery counts as progress: there is a fact to get right. And we find the facts the ordinary way — by looking.
Weakness The gap. No list of facts about what IS gets you to what OUGHT to be, unless you add a hidden rule — and the rule is not a natural fact. Moore adds the open question: 'it makes people happy — but is it good?' always makes sense, so 'good' does not MEAN 'makes people happy'.
Kind two — no fact

Emotivism and prescriptivism

A moral sentence states nothing. It lets out a feeling (Ayer) or gives an order to everyone (Hare) — so it is never true or false.
1Ayer: a sentence has meaning only if it is true by definition or checkable by the senses. 'Stealing is wrong' is neither. So it states nothing: 'Stealing — boo!'
2Hume underneath: look at a murder and you find no 'wrong' — only your own feeling. Moral sentences fit neither prong of Hume's fork.
3Hare: a moral sentence is an order for everyone — 'do not steal', you included. So it guides action and demands that you stay consistent.
4Motivation: beliefs alone never move us; feelings do. Moral sentences DO move us — so they must be feelings, not beliefs. The realist must answer this.
Strength It explains the two things realism finds hardest. Why moral words MOVE us: feelings push, facts do not. And why no amount of evidence settles a moral row: there was never a fact to find. Hare adds a job for reasoning — checking you would give the same order to everyone.
Weakness The clash. If nothing is true, no one can be wrong, so there is no real disagreement and no progress. Ayer's own test fails its own test — it is not true by definition and you cannot check it. And in 'IF stealing is wrong, fraud is wrong', no feeling is let out, so what is 'wrong' doing there?
The middle box

Mackie's error theory

A moral sentence is a claim about a fact — and every one of them is false, because the fact is not there.
1The language claim: a moral sentence is a claim. 'Torture is wrong' means it is wrong whatever anyone feels. Ayer gets what we SAY wrong.
2The existence claim: there are no objective values. So every moral sentence, read as we mean it, is false — like every sentence about witches.
3Relativity: moral rules differ across societies. Different ways of life explain that better than some people seeing moral facts and others missing them.
4Queerness: a moral fact would be strange — a fact that pulls you to act on its own — and you would need a strange extra sense to find it.
Strength It takes moral talk at its word — we DO mean 'wrong, full stop' — and then asks the honest question: is anything out there? Relativity and queerness are real puzzles, and the realist has to answer both.
Weakness Relativity proves too much: scientists disagree, and there are still scientific facts. Queerness is a feeling of strangeness, not an argument — and numbers are strange too. And a view on which 'torturing a child for fun is wrong' is FALSE has a lot to prove.
The challenge

Moore: real, but you cannot define it

'Good' names a real property — but a simple one you cannot define, only see, by intuition.
1The open question: if 'good' meant 'pleasant', then 'pleasant — but is it good?' would be as empty as 'bachelor — but unmarried?'. It is not empty. So 'good' means more.
2'Good' is simple and cannot be defined, like yellow. You can only recognise it. And it is not natural: science cannot find it.
3We know what is good by intuition. Some truths — 'cruelty is bad' — are self-evident: they need no proof and allow none.
4Naturalists are not wrong about WHAT is good. They are wrong to say good MEANS a natural fact. That is the naturalistic fallacy.
Strength It keeps everything realism gives — truth, progress, real disagreement — and explains why every definition of 'good' has felt wrong. And it matches a strong feeling: some moral truths just ARE obvious.
Weakness Whose intuition? When intuitions clash there is nothing shared to settle it. A special fact seen by a special sense is exactly what Mackie calls queer. And the open question may only show we do not KNOW a definition yet — 'water is H₂O' was once open too.
04

Six judgements — fact, feeling, order, or what?

Every position in this unit is tested on cases. Read each one, decide what you would say, then tap for the question the examiners would ask.

05

Talk it through — four moves

Say it before you write it. Four moves, with the sentence stems the examiners are listening for in your essay — connect, challenge, weigh, reason from cases.

Connect
“This connects to … because …”
“That is the same move as … made in …”
This unit · Put the postbox and the pain next to the stolen money. Both start with what looks like a fact. Say what is DIFFERENT: what does 'wrong' point at in each? Why can neither explain everything?
Challenge
“The weakest step is … because …”
“That only follows if … — and it might not.”
This unit · Take Moore. He says 'good' is real but you cannot define it — only see it. Is that an answer to Hume's murder, or a way of dodging it? What would Mackie say about the 'seeing'?
Weigh
“Even granting …, … — so on balance …”
“The cost of that reply is …”
This unit · Say Group B is right: moral sentences let out feelings. Now say what it costs: no one is ever wrong, nothing is progress, 'IF stealing is wrong…' goes blank. Does Hare's order win any back?
Reason from cases
“In case A …; in B …; so in general …”
“The case that breaks the pattern is …”
This unit · Run the six judgements through two questions: is there a FACT? Is it a CLAIM? Say the rule you found for which box a sentence goes in. Then find the judgement that will not sit in any box.
Protocol Pairs 2 min → fours 3 min → two speakers to the front. Roles: Proposer · Challenger · Judge · Reporter. Rule: every reply begins by restating what you heard. · 8 min
06

The exam ladder — this unit's mock

Five rungs, one per question type. Open a rung for the shape a full answer takes and this unit's plan, then write. Everyone climbs Q01–Q04; Q05 is the stretch.

Q013 marks · Define
What is meant by 'moral anti-realism'?SHAPE One precise sentence a philosopher would accept
The shape of a full answer
  1. One precise sentence
  2. A contrast or example if it earns clarity
  3. No evaluation, no history — stop
Your plan — this unit
  1. There are no mind-independent moral facts or properties
  2. Contrast realism in half a sentence
  3. Note it is compatible with cognitivism (Mackie) or not (Ayer).
Write it — about 2 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q025 marks · Outline
Outline the difference between cognitivism and non-cognitivism about moral judgements.SHAPE Every part the specification names, in order
The shape of a full answer
  1. State the view or distinction in full
  2. Use the technical vocabulary exactly
  3. Order it: claim → the parts → what follows
Your plan — this unit
  1. Cognitivism: express beliefs, truth-apt
  2. Non-cognitivism: express attitudes or prescriptions, not truth-apt
  3. One example of each position
  4. Why the distinction crosses realism/anti-realism.
Write it — about 4 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q035 marks · Explain
Explain Moore's open question argument against moral naturalism.SHAPE Set-up → premises → conclusion
The shape of a full answer
  1. Set-up: name the target — which view, which claim
  2. Premises: state them in order, numbered
  3. Conclusion: show it follows, and what it costs
Your plan — this unit
  1. If 'good' meant N, 'X is N but is X good?' would be closed
  2. It is open for every N
  3. So 'good' does not mean any N
  4. Goodness is non-natural.
Write it — about 5 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q0412 marks · Explain
Explain Mackie's argument from queerness and one response to it.SHAPE Two linked explanations, both full
The shape of a full answer
  1. Part A: the view or argument, in full
  2. Part B: the issue or reply, with its own premises and conclusion
  3. The link: one sentence on what B does to A
  4. Mostly AO1 — explain, do not judge; the verdict waits for the essay
Your plan — this unit
  1. Metaphysical queerness (facts that motivate)
  2. Epistemological queerness (a special faculty)
  3. The conclusion
  4. The companions-in-guilt reply (mathematics, modality)
  5. What the reply concedes.
Write it — about 8 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q0525 marks · Evaluate
Are there moral facts?SHAPE A sustained argument to a judgement
The shape of a full answer
  1. Introduction: define the term, state your thesis, name the positions you will test
  2. Each paragraph: state the argument · test it with the strongest objection · reply · WEIGH
  3. One shared case, run through every position
  4. Judgement: what survives, and what the losing views cannot explain
Your plan — this unit
  1. Thesis
  2. The two distinctions
  3. Naturalism tested on the open question
  4. Mackie tested on companions in guilt
  5. Non-cognitivism on progress or Frege-Geach
  6. Judgement naming what each losing view cannot explain.
Write it — about 10 lines to plan, then the essay in your book
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Beyond the ladder: Take the strongest normative theory from this year. Say which meta-ethical position it needs to be true. Then say whether that position survives this unit.
07

Your resources

Everything for the unit, in one place. The lesson, the booklet and the podcast belong to this unit; the Moral Philosophy Companion runs across the whole series.

Teacher setup: links aren't set yet. Open this file, find the LINKS list near the bottom, and paste each SharePoint share link once. Buttons with no link show as "Link not set".
✓Revise & mock — per lesson: the episode, three games, and every past-paper question with the shape of a full answer↗🎮The Arena — six games on the words, positions, arguments and verdicts of this unit: Bronze, Silver, Gold; objective and evaluative tracks↗✓Your Companion — tick what you understand, see what you have done in the Arena, place yourself and choose your next move; print it for your teacher↗▲Intervention — E–D to C, C to B, B to A*: the four moves for your tier, with drills, model answers at every level and Coach Owl↗ ▣Lesson deck — the slides, with the four positions, the cases and the ladder↗ ✎Completion booklet — greyscale, mirrors the lesson — fill it as you go↗ ♪Lesson podcast — a teacher and a student argue the unit through to a judgement↗ ≡Podcast transcript — read along, or read instead↗ 🦉Moral Philosophy Companion — checklist, key words, review workbook and the Q01–Q05 planner↗ ♪Overview podcast — the whole series as one argument (team teach)↗ ◎NotebookLM pack — make your own podcast from the unit's sources↗ ▤Printable flashcards — fold-over cards to cut out↗ ▶Revision playlist — the YouTube playlist for the course↗
08

How to revise this unit

Use the resources in this order. The Moral Philosophy Companion is where you learn to plan all five question types.

Listen to the podcast, then read the transcript

A teacher and a student argue every position through to a judgement. Pause at each position and say what it claims before they do.

Complete the booklet

Given text on the left, your words on the right. Decide the strength and the weakness YOU would give each position.

Flip the flashcards until every term is one sentence

Key terms first, then the positions. A term you cannot define in one sentence is a Q01 you cannot yet answer.

Climb the ladder: Q01 to Q04 from a plan

Precision questions. Open each rung, plan from the shape, write, then check every part the specification names is there.

Plan Q05 with one shared case

In the Companion: Part 4, the Q05 planning frame. Plan 'Are there moral facts?' — thesis, one feature of moral language through every view, judgement.

Q01–Q04 · 3, 5, 5 and 12 marks · precision
Q01 Define — one precise sentence a philosopher would accept. No evaluation, no history.
Q02 Outline — every part the specification names, in order, in the technical vocabulary.
Q03 Explain — set-up, premises in order, conclusion — and what it costs the target.
Q04 Explain … and … — two full explanations and the one sentence that links them. Still AO1: explain, do not judge.
Q05 · 25 marks · AO2 is 20 of them
What it is — a sustained argument to a judgement. Every paragraph states an argument, tests it, replies, and WEIGHS.
Aim — AO1 is saying what each view claims and which box it sits in. AO2 is taking ONE feature of moral talk — disagreement, progress, or motivation — and running it through all four views to a judgement.
09

Watch

Moral realism in 10 minutes — watch for moral realism in ten minutes — Sally Latham, 10:27

▶Moral realism in 10 minutes · 10 min
Watch for: moral realism in ten minutes — Sally Latham, 10:27↗▶Meta-ethics: the terms · 6 min
Watch for: the terms of meta-ethics — Philosophy Vibe, 6:20↗▶The course playlist (AQA)
Watch for: the whole course, episode by episode; use it when a lesson's own videos are not enough.↗
10

Flashcards — test yourself

Flip a card to check yourself. Switch between key terms (term → meaning) and positions (position → claim, strength & weakness).

Tap any card to flip ·
11

Exit ticket

Three things to recall, one to argue. Answer them in your book before you leave the unit.

Recall

  1. Draw the two-by-two grid and put all four views in it.
  2. Say Moore's open question in two sentences.
  3. Give one strength AND one weakness of Mackie's error theory.

Challenge

Argue: Which view would you defend in a 25-mark answer — and which feature of moral talk (disagreement, progress, or being moved to act) would you use to test all four?

AO1 vs AO2 AO1 is saying what each view claims and which box it sits in. AO2 is taking ONE feature of moral talk — disagreement, progress, or motivation — and running it through all four views to a judgement.