Questions: Introduction to Metaethics

Question 1

A philosopher argues that moral sentences like 'Torturing innocents is wrong' are not true or false — they express the speaker's disapproval rather than stating facts. This view is best described as:

• A. Moral realism
• B. Cognitivism
• C. Non-cognitivism (expressivism)
• D. Error theory

Answer: (C)

Non-cognitivism holds that moral statements are not truth-apt propositions but expressions of attitudes, emotions, or prescriptions. Expressivism (a specific version) holds that moral sentences express pro- or con-attitudes — 'Torture is wrong' functions more like 'Boo, torture!' than like a factual claim. Moral realism holds that moral facts are mind-independent. Cognitivism holds moral statements are truth-apt beliefs. Error theory is cognitivist but holds all moral beliefs are false.

Question 2

Metaethics is just another term for moral relativism.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

Moral relativism is one specific metaethical position (roughly: moral truths are relative to cultures or individuals). Metaethics is the broader philosophical discipline that investigates the nature, status, and foundations of morality — including realism, anti-realism, error theory, expressivism, and relativism among many others. Calling metaethics 'just relativism' confuses the field with one of the positions it examines.

Question 3

What is the difference between a metaethical question and a normative ethical question? Give an example of each.

Model answer: A normative ethical question asks what is right or wrong (e.g., 'Is lying ever permissible?'). A metaethical question asks about the nature of moral claims (e.g., 'Are moral statements capable of being true or false?'). Metaethics investigates what moral discourse is; normative ethics operates within it.

Normative ethics takes moral language at face value and tries to determine what is right, good, or virtuous. Metaethics steps back and asks whether that project even makes sense — whether moral claims express facts, attitudes, or commands; whether moral knowledge is possible; and what would make a moral claim true, if anything could. You can hold the same normative theory (e.g., utilitarianism) while disagreeing fundamentally about its metaethical foundations.