Exploring Natural Law Through The Lens Of Metaethics

Metaethics is a branch of analytic philosophy that explores the status, foundations, and scope of moral values, properties, and words. It is concerned with the nature of ethical theories and moral judgements, and is one of three branches of ethics, the others being normative ethics and applied ethics. Metaethics focuses on the meaning of moral terms or judgements, the nature of moral judgements, and how moral judgements may be supported or defended.

Metaethics is concerned with questions such as: What is goodness? How can we tell what is good from what is bad? Where do moral values originate? Are there any objective moral facts? Is morality culturally relative?

Metaethical theories are commonly categorized as either a form of realism or as one of three forms of anti-realism regarding moral facts: ethical subjectivism, error theory, or non-cognitivism.

Natural law is a theory that appeals to nature or natural law to make claims about what is good or bad. An action, goal, or characteristic is good if it accords with nature or natural law and is bad if it violates it. Nature can refer to human nature or the observed features of the natural world.

One metaethical theory that appeals to natural law is ethical naturalism, which holds that there are objective moral properties and that these properties are reducible or stand in some metaphysical relation to entirely non-ethical properties. Ethical naturalism was implicitly assumed by many modern ethical theorists, particularly utilitarians.

The meaning of moral terms or judgments

Metaethics is concerned with the meaning of moral terms and judgments. This involves questions such as: What do we mean when we use words like 'good' and 'right'? What is the nature of moral judgments? Are moral judgments absolute or relative?

Metaethicists attempt to answer these questions by examining the semantics of moral discourse, the ontology of moral properties, and the psychology of how morality affects us as human agents.

Some key theories and positions within metaethics that address the meaning of moral terms and judgments include:

• Cognitivism: The view that moral statements express propositions that can be true or false. Cognitivism can be further divided into moral realism and ethical subjectivism.
• Moral realism: The belief that moral values are based on objective facts about the world and are not just subjective opinions. This includes ethical naturalism, which holds that moral properties are reducible to non-ethical, natural properties, and ethical non-naturalism, which asserts that moral properties are objective and irreducible.
• Ethical subjectivism: The belief that moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes, conventions, or beliefs of individuals, societies, or some particular individual. This includes ideal observer theory, divine command theory, and error theory.
• Non-cognitivism: The view that moral statements do not express genuine propositions and are neither true nor false. This includes emotivism, quasi-realism, and universal prescriptivism.

The nature of moral judgments

• What exactly are people doing when they use moral words such as "good" and "right"?
• What precisely is a moral value, and are such values similar to other familiar sorts of entities, such as objects and properties?
• Where do moral values come from—what is their source and foundation?
• Are some things morally right or wrong for all people at all times, or does morality instead vary from person to person, context to context, or culture to culture?

Metaethics attempts to understand the metaphysical, epistemological, semantic, and psychological presuppositions and commitments of moral thought, talk, and practice. It involves reflecting on the presuppositions and commitments that are shared by those who engage in moral thought, talk, and practice, and abstracting away from particular moral judgments.

Metaethics is concerned with the meaning of moral terms or judgments, the nature of moral judgments, and how moral judgments may be supported or defended. It addresses questions such as "What is goodness?" and "How can we tell what is good from what is bad?" by seeking to understand the assumptions underlying normative theories.

Metaethical theories can be broadly categorized into cognitivist and non-cognitivist theories. Cognitivist theories hold that evaluative moral sentences express propositions (i.e., they are 'truth-apt' or 'truth bearers'), while non-cognitivist theories hold that ethical sentences are neither true nor false because they do not express genuine propositions.

Cognitivist theories can be further divided into moral realism and moral anti-realism. Moral realism asserts that ethical values have some basis in reality and that reasoning about ethical matters requires an objective framework or foundation to discover what is truly good. Moral anti-realism, on the other hand, asserts that ethical values are not based on objective facts but instead rely on subjective foundations like individuals' desires and beliefs.

Moral realism can be further categorized into ethical naturalism and ethical non-naturalism. Ethical naturalism holds that moral properties are reducible to or stand in some metaphysical relation to entirely non-ethical properties. Ethical non-naturalism, on the other hand, holds that moral properties are objective and irreducible to non-ethical properties.

Non-cognitivist theories can be further divided into emotivism, quasi-realism, and universal prescriptivism. Emotivism holds that ethical sentences serve merely to express emotions, while quasi-realism holds that ethical statements behave linguistically like factual claims but do not correspond to ethical facts. Universal prescriptivism holds that moral statements function like universalized imperative sentences, expressing prescriptions or prohibitions of action.

How moral judgments may be supported or defended

Moral judgments may be supported or defended in a variety of ways, depending on the metaethical theory being applied. Here are some examples:

• Moral Realism: This view asserts that moral values are based on objective facts about the world and are not just subjective opinions. Moral realists might argue that moral judgments can be supported or defended by appealing to universal, transcendent standards or principles that exist independently of human beliefs or culture. For instance, they might point to natural laws, such as human flourishing or pleasure, as the basis for moral judgments.
• Divine Command Theory: This theory holds that moral values are grounded in the commands or will of a divine being, such as God. Moral judgments, according to this theory, can be supported or defended by appealing to religious scriptures, sacred practices, or the idea that God, as the ultimate authority, determines what is right and wrong.
• Natural Law Theory: This theory posits that moral values are derived from nature or natural law. Proponents of this theory might argue that moral judgments can be supported or defended by referencing the inherent purpose or telos of human nature, or by appealing to natural facts about human flourishing, pleasure, or happiness.
• Ethical Intuitionism: This theory suggests that moral knowledge is gained through intuition or direct apprehension, rather than through reasoning or sensory experience. Proponents of ethical intuitionism might defend moral judgments by claiming that we have a fundamental, innate sense of right and wrong that guides our moral intuitions.
• Moral Relativism: This theory maintains that moral values are relative to societal or individual standards, and there is no universal standard to objectively assess moral propositions. Moral relativists might defend moral judgments by arguing that they are based on the norms, values, or conventions of a particular society or culture.
• Moral Nihilism: This view denies the existence of intrinsic moral values and claims that "right" and "wrong" are meaningless concepts. Moral nihilists might argue that moral judgments are ultimately baseless and cannot be objectively supported or defended.
• Moral Epistemology: This field explores how we come to know moral facts and make moral judgments. Proponents of moral epistemology might defend moral judgments by appealing to various sources of moral knowledge, such as intuition, empirical observation, or rational reflection.
• Moral Psychology: This field examines the psychological and emotional underpinnings of moral judgments. Proponents of this approach might defend moral judgments by explaining the role of emotions, motivations, and desires in shaping our moral beliefs and actions.

The role of moral reasoning in human psychology

Metaethics is the study of the nature, scope, and meaning of moral judgement. It is a branch of analytic philosophy that explores the status, foundations, and scope of moral values, properties, and words. Metaethics focuses on what morality itself is, rather than what is moral. It attempts to understand the presuppositions connected to morality and moral deliberation.

Metaethics is concerned with the psychological impact of morality on human agents. It explores the psychology of how morality affects us as embodied human agents. It asks how it is that moral standards might provide us with reasons to do or refrain from doing as they demand. It also investigates the connection between values, reasons for action, and human motivation.

Metaethics asks whether there is a psychological basis for moral practices and value judgements. It explores the role of moral reasoning in human psychology by asking how moral judgements are motivating. It asks whether moral judgements are motivating and whether reason and belief are motivating. It also asks whether there is a reason to be moral for its own sake and whether we can give any psychologically persuasive reasons to others to act morally if they do not already acknowledge such reasons.

Metaethics also asks whether there is a reason to be moral for its own sake and whether we can give any psychologically persuasive reasons to others to act morally if they do not already acknowledge such reasons. It investigates whether it is part of the definition of moral concepts such as "right" and "wrong" that they should or should not be pursued, or whether it is possible to know that, for example, murder is morally wrong, but nonetheless not recognise any reason not to murder.

Metaethics also explores the nature of moral disagreement and whether moral debate poses a challenge to moral realism. It asks whether moral disagreements mean that morality is subjective. It also asks whether moral debate can improve our understanding of a moral issue.

Metaethics also investigates the role of emotions in moral reasoning. It asks whether it is fundamentally rationality that supplies our moral distinctions and motivations, or whether these are generated or conditioned by passions and sentiments that are separate from reason. It also asks whether there is a reason to be moral for its own sake and whether we can give any psychologically persuasive reasons to others to act morally if they do not already acknowledge such reasons.

Metaethics also explores the role of intuition in moral reasoning. It asks whether there are some moral truths that can be known without inference. It also asks whether moral knowledge involves claims about generic moral values such as "goodness" or "wrongness" or whether moral knowledge may be obtained at the more concrete level of concepts such as "courage", "intemperance", or "compassion".

Metaethics also investigates the role of reason in moral reasoning. It asks whether reason has control over emotions, or whether reason can create moral judgements. It also asks whether reason can create beliefs about how to satisfy or achieve our desired ends.

Metaethics also explores the role of moral reasoning in moral progress. It asks whether moral progress occurs and, if so, whether there is an objective moral standard towards which increasing gains can be made.

Finally, metaethics asks whether there is a reason to be moral for its own sake and whether we can give any psychologically persuasive reasons to others to act morally if they do not already acknowledge such reasons.

The relationship between moral principles and particular judgments

Moral principles provide a framework for evaluating particular actions, institutions, and characters. They guide us in distinguishing between right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust, virtuous and vicious. However, the challenge lies in determining which moral principles are valid and why. This is where particular judgments come into play.

Particular judgments are the specific applications of moral principles to concrete situations. They are the decisions we make about what is right or wrong, good or bad, in a given context. For example, we may have a moral principle that killing is wrong. But when faced with a situation where killing might be necessary to defend ourselves or others, we need to make a particular judgment about whether killing is justified in that specific case.

Metaethics helps us explore this relationship by examining the foundations and justifications of moral principles and the processes by which we make particular judgments. It asks questions such as: What is the nature of moral properties? How do we know what is right or wrong? Are there objective moral facts, or are moral values relative? By addressing these questions, metaethics provides a deeper understanding of the relationship between moral principles and particular judgments, and it helps us navigate the complexities and uncertainties that arise in moral decision-making.

Frequently asked questions