Key Idea: Topic 4.2 steps BACK from 'what should I do?' to a harder question: what is a moral claim even DOING? When you say 'cruelty is wrong', are you stating a fact, or just voicing a feeling? This is meta-ethics. It feeds Paper 1 Section B, a 25-mark "Evaluate the claim that…" essay. Get this topic and you can attack the deepest claim of all — whether morality is real.
🔍 The four big questions, one card each
Topic 4.2 at a glance
- 4.2.1 · Where do values come from? — Are moral values DISCOVERED (out there, like maths) or INVENTED (made by us)? Candidate sources: reason, feeling, God, culture. The sharpest clash is reason vs feeling — is morality something you work out, or something you feel?
- 4.2.2 · Realism vs anti-realism — Is 'cruelty is wrong' a FACT? Realism: yes — moral facts exist independently of what anyone thinks. Anti-realism: no — values come from us, from our attitudes or agreements. This is the central meta-ethical split.
- 4.2.3 · Relativism vs universalism — Is morality the same for everyone? Relativism ties right and wrong to a culture and gains an appeal to tolerance. But its cost is brutal: it can't consistently condemn cruelty in another society. Universalism holds some things are wrong everywhere.
- 4.2.4 · What does 'good' mean? — When you say 'wrong', what are you DOING? Cognitivism: stating a belief that's true or false. Non-cognitivism: expressing something else. Emotivism: you're voicing approval or disapproval — 'boo, cruelty!' — not describing a fact.
Cognitivism says moral statements are beliefs that can be true or false — 'stealing is wrong' describes something. Non-cognitivism says they are NOT true-or-false at all — they express feelings, commands or attitudes ('boo, stealing!'). Almost every meta-ethics question comes back to this fork: is moral language describing the world, or doing something else entirely?
✍️ Bring it together — a Section B question
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.
Important: Sliding into normative ethics — arguing about whether cruelty IS wrong, instead of the meta-ethical question of what saying 'wrong' MEANS. Meta-ethics is one level up: it's about the STATUS of moral claims (fact or feeling, discovered or invented), not about which acts are good. Keep asking 'what is a moral judgement doing?', not 'what should we do?', and always reach a reasoned conclusion.
✅ Check yourself
If you can answer these six, you have the spine of the whole topic.
Discovered vs invented values? Discovered = values exist independently, like maths (realism). Invented = values are made by us, from reason, feeling or culture (anti-realism).
Moral realism in one line? Some things really ARE right or wrong as facts, independent of what anyone thinks or feels — moral facts exist.
Cognitivism vs non-cognitivism? Cognitivism: moral claims are beliefs, true or false. Non-cognitivism: they're not true-or-false — they express feelings, commands or attitudes.
What is emotivism? A non-cognitivist view: 'X is wrong' just expresses disapproval — 'boo, X!' — rather than stating a fact.
The cost of relativism? Tying morality to a culture wins tolerance but loses the power to condemn cruelty in another society — you can't call it truly wrong.
How is meta-ethics different from normative ethics? Normative ethics asks WHICH acts are right. Meta-ethics asks what moral claims ARE — their meaning, truth and source. One level up.
Exam tips
- Section B is a 25-mark 'Evaluate the claim that…' essay with NO stimulus — structure and evaluation carry the marks.
- Stay at the meta-level: about the STATUS of moral claims, not which acts are good.
- Name a position ONLY with its argument — 'emotivism' or 'realism' alone earns nothing.
- Use rival meta-ethical views against the claim, then end on a reasoned conclusion, not a list.