One unit, one argument — told four times. Meta-ethics does not tell you what to do. It asks a harder, prior question: what are you actually saying when you say something is good?
What do we MEAN when we call something good or right — and can a moral claim ever be a fact?
Every theory in this unit lines up on one axis: how much factual content does a moral claim have? At the left, moral claims describe the world and can be true or false. At the right, they describe nothing at all. Pick a sub-topic, then tap a position to see what it claims — and the trade it is making.
Tap a circle — or use Tab and Enter — to explore each position.
This is not four separate topics. It is ONE argument, asked four times: are moral values FACTS? Spot the thread and you are writing at the top of the mark scheme.
The Map sets up the question, DCT answers it with a supernatural fact, Naturalism with a natural fact, and Non-naturalism with a non-natural fact — until the non-cognitivists say there is no fact at all.
Hume's gap sits under all four sub-topics. Every theory here either tries to cross it (naturalism, DCT), declares it uncrossable (Moore), or gives up on facts entirely (Ayer, Hare).
The more measurable a moral 'fact' is, the less it looks like goodness; the more it looks like goodness, the less measurable it is. Every position on the spectrum is a different price paid for that trade.
Four sub-topics, four big questions — but each one is really asking whether a moral claim states a fact, and if so, what KIND of fact. Each panel gives you the two opposed answers you must be able to set against each other.
Moral claims ARE about facts, so they can be true or false and can be known. Naturalism, non-naturalism and DCT all sit here.
Moral claims state no facts at all — they express feeling, wish or prescription, so they are neither true nor false. Ayer and Hare sit here.
It is right BECAUSE God commands it. God's will constitutes morality (Ockham) — but then 'God is good' says only 'God does what God does'.
God commands it BECAUSE it is right. Goodness stands independently — but then God is not the source of morality, and omnipotence is lost.
'Good' MEANS a natural property — the balance of pleasure over pain (Bentham), higher-quality happiness (Mill), agape, or human flourishing (Foot, Midgley, Warnock). Observable, measurable, objective.
Identifying 'good' with any natural property is the naturalistic fallacy — an 'ought' smuggled out of an 'is' (Hume, Moore). No natural fact can BE goodness.
'Good' is simple and unanalysable, like yellow (Moore). It names a real, non-natural property known by intuition — still cognitivist, still true or false.
'Murder is wrong' is an emotional ejaculation (Ayer) or a universal prescription (Hare) — it names no property, so it is neither true nor false.
Examiners see these four every series. Fix them now — each one is worth more than any extra quotation you could learn.
Intuitionism is non-cognitive.
Divine Command Theory is naturalist because God made nature.
Meta-ethics tells you what to do.
The naturalistic fallacy proves naturalism false.
Everything for the unit, in one place. Open a sub-topic's lesson, booklet and podcast, and use the Philosopher Companion across all four.
LINKS list near the bottom, and paste each SharePoint share link once. Buttons with no link show as “Link not set”.
Use your resources in this order. The Philosopher Companion is where you learn to plan both question types — and meta-ethics is a unit where precision of language is worth more than volume.
One podcast per sub-topic — a teacher and student talk each position through to a judgement. Annotate as you listen.
Read the given text, write the key claims in your own words, then decide the strength and weakness you would give each position.
Cognitivist or non-cognitivist? Natural or non-natural? If you cannot place a theory on the spectrum above, you do not yet know it. Use the flashcards in section 06.
Use the Companion frameworks and the guidance-left / your-turn-right scaffolds. Never evaluate what you have not first explained.
Sit one AO1 and one AO2 under exam conditions, mark against the AQA levels, then close the gaps with the review lessons.
A full review of Meta-ethics — the map, Divine Command Theory, ethical naturalism and the non-cognitive turn. Best watched before you start revising, then again to check your recall.
Teacher: paste the YouTube link in the VIDEO_URL line near the bottom of this file. The player then appears here automatically.
Flip a card to check yourself. Switch between key terms (term → meaning) and positions (position → claim, meaning of 'good', strength & weakness), and filter by sub-topic.