The big idea: The whole topic keeps circling one word: good. Meta-ethics ends by looking at what our moral words actually do. When you say 'stealing is wrong', which of these are you doing?
Stating a fact
- You are reporting how things are
- So your claim can be true or false
Doing something else
- You are expressing a feeling
- Or you are waving people away from stealing
This splits into two camps: cognitivism and non-cognitivism.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
Start Studying Free Full access to Aimnova Pro · cancel anytime
The split turns on one question: can a moral claim be true or false at all?
Cognitivism: moral claims can be true or false: The cognitivist treats 'stealing is wrong' like 'grass is green' — a statement that reports something and so can be true or false.
Why cognitivism fits
- It fits how morality sounds: we argue about it, say people are 'mistaken', try to get it 'right'.
- You can only be right or wrong about something if there's a fact of the matter — so cognitivism travels naturally with moral realism from the last micro.
Non-cognitivism: moral claims aren't statements: The non-cognitivist says 'stealing is wrong' only looks like a statement. It isn't really reporting a fact — it's expressing something. It's closer to booing at stealing, or telling people not to do it.
What follows
- On this view a moral claim can't be true or false, because it was never a fact-report in the first place.
- This fits anti-realism: if there are no moral facts, moral talk must be doing something other than describing them.
Checkpoint — the split: In one line: cognitivism says moral claims can be true or false; non-cognitivism says they only look like statements but really express feeling. Now the sharpest version of non-cognitivism.
Know your predicted grade
Take timed mock exams and get detailed feedback on every answer. See exactly where you're losing marks.
Try Mock Exams FreeYour first topic is free to keep • No credit card required
One vivid theory turns non-cognitivism into a slogan; then a famous puzzle asks what 'good' could even name.
Emotivism: the 'boo!/hurrah!' theory: Emotivism is the boldest non-cognitivist view. Saying 'cruelty is wrong' is really saying 'Boo to cruelty!'; saying 'kindness is good' is 'Hurrah for kindness!'. Moral words vent feeling and try to stir the same feeling in you — they don't state facts.
Its strength
- It explains why morality moves us to act (feelings do that)
Its weakness
- It makes moral disagreement look like two people just booing and cheering
- Yet real moral arguments feel like genuine disputes about who's right
Naturalism vs non-naturalism about 'good': Cognitivists who think 'good' names a real property still split into two camps.
Naturalism
- Naturalism says 'good' boils down to a natural, this-world fact
- e.g. 'good' means 'what increases happiness'
Non-naturalism
- Non-naturalism replies with the open question
- For ANY natural fact — say 'increases happiness' — you can still sensibly ask 'but is increasing happiness good?'
- Since that question stays open, 'good' can't just mean that natural fact; it names something extra you can't reduce away
Go further — higher-level insight: See how this micro ties the whole topic together. Linking language, facts and sources across all four micros is exactly the synthesis a §B essay rewards.
The links to name
- Cognitivism travels with realism (4.2.2) and the 'discovered' side (4.2.1).
- Non-cognitivism and emotivism travel with anti-realism and the 'feeling' source (Hume).
- The open question argument is the language-level echo of Hume's fact–value gap: you can list every natural fact and 'good' still isn't captured.
Checkpoint — 'good': In one line: emotivism reduces moral words to 'boo!/hurrah!', while the open question suggests 'good' names something real you can't reduce to any natural fact. Four theories of moral language now sit on the table.
How Section B works: Section B gives you a choice of essay questions on the optional themes (Ethics is one) [25]. The whole of 4.2 arms you for it.
What to expect
- No stimulus — just a claim to evaluate, using your own knowledge.
- 'Evaluate the claim that…' is the classic wording.
IB-style questionEvaluate[25 marks]
Evaluate the claim that moral judgements are nothing more than expressions of feeling.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: 1. Describing cognitivism and emotivism instead of arguing between them. 2. Ignoring 'nothing more than' — the claim's strength or weakness is in those words. 3. Only one view — top bands need tension. 4. No conclusion — decide, with a reason. 5. Name-dropping — a theory earns nothing without its argument.