The big idea: Say out loud: 'torturing a child for fun is wrong.' It feels like a plain fact — as solid as 'the Earth orbits the Sun.' But here's the puzzle: is it true in the same way?
True out there?
- Like 'the Earth orbits the Sun'
- True whether or not anyone believes it
- True out there, independent of us
Or true for people?
- Like 'chocolate is delicious'
- True for people
- Really about them, not the world
This is the central split of meta-ethics: moral realism versus anti-realism.
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
Start with the side that matches how morality feels from the inside.
Objectivism: moral facts are real: The objectivist says some moral claims are simply true, whoever you are and whatever your culture. 'Genocide is wrong' isn't true just for us — it would still be wrong even if a whole society approved of it.
On this view
- Morality is discovered, like the truths of maths.
- We find that cruelty is wrong; we don't vote it into being.
- This fits our deepest reactions — we don't just dislike torturing children, we think it's really, mind-independently wrong.
Checkpoint — realism: In one line: moral realism says some acts are just wrong — true for everyone, whatever anyone believes. Hold that; now the challenge from the other side.
Study smarter, not longer
Most students waste 40% of study time on topics they already know. Our AI tracks your progress and optimizes every minute.
Try Smart Study FreeYour first topic is free to keep • No credit card required
The opposite camp asks the awkward question realism keeps dodging: where could a moral fact live?
Subjectivism: morality is about us, not the world: The subjectivist says: look for wrongness in the world and you never find it. You can measure the act — the force, the harm — but 'wrong' isn't a property out there like mass or colour.
So what is 'wrong'?
- When you say 'cruelty is wrong', you're really expressing a human attitude — strong disapproval — not reporting a fact.
- Morality is invented: real and important, but a feature of us, not of the universe.
- Different beings with different feelings might have built it differently.
Go further — higher-level insight: See the trade-off, and you've got the whole debate. Naming that exact trade-off is the top-band move; each side's strength is the other's weakness.
Realism
- Strength: explains why some things feel absolutely, non-negotiably wrong
- Weakness: owes us an account of what a 'moral fact' is and how we detect it
Anti-realism
- Strength: has no spooky facts to explain
- Weakness: struggles to say why a society approving of genocide would be mistaken rather than just different
Checkpoint — anti-realism: In one line: anti-realism says there are no moral facts out there — 'wrong' expresses our attitude, not a feature of the world. Two rival pictures now sit side by side.