Pros And Cons Of Meta Ethics

Meta ethics refers to a category of analytic philosophy that focuses on the social or professional position, foundation and extent of the moral values, characteristics and words. There are a number of theories related to the Meta ethics that are designed to support various types of moral thinking and actions(Jacobs, 2002). Meta ethics have been considered as an abstract and impressionistic way of thinking, therefore, Meta ethics is placed second to the normative theory of philosophy. Meta ethics have been part of western philosophy since the beginning of philosophy; however, in the beginning of the 20thcentury, Meta ethics grabbed the attention of a great audience(Jacobs, 2002). The basic question of the Meta ethics is how to find what is right

and what is wrong? The answers of these questions vary from person to person, which helped in developing a few theories in this field. In this paper, two Meta ethical positions will be compared and contrasted in order to understand the different levels, understanding, fundamentals and focuses of each position regarding the basic question of the Meta ethics. Although, the answer to the question is not effectively explained and it is believed that the correct interpretation of the question should be done in the upside down interpreting manner by the individuals themselves(Ross, 2008).
Moral Realism refers to the moral facts of ontology; therefore, it is also termed as an ontology’s thesis. According to this ethical position, moral facts are just like the mathematical facts and formulas and the people have to accept them as it is and not as per their personal wishes and beliefs. Moral facts cannot be displayed because it has no physical shape or existance. For example, if a person says that lying for personal benefits is wrong, however, the person cannot observe the fact in the same way as it has been portrayed by the moral realism. There are some points on which the realists and antirealist have a same point of view(Sayre-McCord, 1988). For example, realists and antirealists strongly believe that Nazis are bad, terrorism is wrong, however, there is a clear difference between the two groups. Anti-realists usually work hard to disagree with the natural and scientific rules preserving normal and common ways of speaking. Moore summarized the moral realism as a thing that is said to be good under this ethical position and should be linked with an unnatural, unique and distinctive property. He further argued that goodness cannot be perceived alone, unless a person links it with a thing that can be perceived in real terms. As a result the person will become able to understand moral properties, however, at the same time it will be somehow mysterious for him’/her. In short, Moral realism reflects universal truths and/or the objectives of a particular action(Sayre-McCord, 1988).
Moral relativism is the opposite of Moral realism that focuses on the claims related to cultural, social, historical and personal positions. The type of Meta ethical position supports the individual perception and belief of people regarding right and wrong(Lukes, 2008). For example, every person is free in deciding right and wrong for themselves. In this regard, moral relativism is given a free hand to the society in making their judgments of right and wrong. According to Frank Oppenheim, a relativist can inconsistently favor inequality, tolerance, violence, and discrimination using his/her own judgment skills and perceptions and can ends up with great harm to the society(Oppenheim, 1955). This is showing that a number of relativists are well aware about the consequences of the personal beliefs regarding the right and wrong, however, they still believe that it is the right of an individual to decide what he/she thinks is right for him/her. Moral relativism rejects that a person is bound to follow cultural norms and social values (Lukes, 2008).
Both, the moral realism and moral relativism has its own very unique pros and cons and it cannot be said that any of them is totally useless and fruitless for the society and for the humans at all.

Moral realism tells about certain things that are usually right or wrong, regardless of the circumstances, culture and societies. For example, discrimination and theft are wrong in all cultures and societies because it has a number of bad consequences. Russ Shafer Land auargues that the best thing about moral realism is that they are intrinsically normative or in other words, they are always giving some good reasons, regardless of the beliefs and wishes of a person(Shafer-Landau, 2005). The moral realism is helping people to judge the advantages and disadvantages of a certain action or thing (right or wrong) for its justification. On the other hand, moral realism is narrowing the freedom of individuals, societies and cultures in numerous circumstances. The facts that are presented by the moral realism are usually not found in a real time society. Similarly, the moral relativism has also a number of advantages such as a freedom of making decisions as per the nature and demand of a particular situation; it has helped in tolerating various cultures, and it allowed individuals to express their feelings about the universal truths and cultural facts that they believe are wrong(Lukes, 2008). On one hand, moral relativism has empowered individuals in making their own decisions regarding

right and wrong, however, on the other hand, it left them confused in making decisions that are morally and ethically right because they cannot differentiate what is morally right and what is morally wrong. As a result, moral relativism is posing a serious threat to the morality and intellectual certainties and can cause potential problems for other individuals(Lewis, 2007).
From the above discussion about the two Meta ethical positions: moral realism and moral relativism, it is concluded that in a healthy society the practice of both theories should go hand in hand. It is obvious that moral realism is more natural, factual, clear and sensible because it is supporting universal truths with clear consequences on the society and on individuals. However, we could not deny the fact that in some situations, an individual has to go against the universal truths. For example, the moral realism states that cheating is bad, however, moral relativism argue that cheating is done to benefit the society or to not potentially harm an individual, culture or society can be termed as a right thing. Both Meta ethical positions have some potential drawbacks as both have potential opposition.