Analyse the arguments which philosophers use to claim that ethical language is not meaningful but emotive.

This logical positivist position questions the meaning of ethical language just as it questioned the basis of religious language. For if one wishes to maintain the meaning of ethical language in the face of the logical positivist theory, one must verify ethical statements such as 'abortion is wrong' either analytically of synthetically. A.J. Ayer demonstrated that verification of ethical statements is impossible and therefore ethical language is meaningless.

Analytically, it is impossible to verify a statement such as 'abortion is wrong' because there is no logical connection between abortion and wrong. Whereas it is contradictory to say 'all bachelors are unmarried women,' it is not contradictory to say 'abortion is not right.' Therefore, ethical statements cannot be verified analytically.

Now, in order for ethical language to be verified synthetically an empirical basis for moral language would have to be found. The normative subjectivist and utilitarian positions have both attempted to present a system for defining what is 'good' or 'right', which can be reduced to facts. The rightness of actions is defined by subjectivists as that which is approved of by an individual or group and similarly by utilitarians as the quantity of pleasure resulting from the action. The essential test for Ayer was "whether statements of ethical value can be translated into statements of empirical fact" (Ayer 2001, 106). If the subjectivist or utilitarian views were true Ayer's test would have been satisfied since their respective definitions of right present a verifiable measure that would satisfy the logical positivist principle. Both the approval of an individual or group and the amount of pleasure resulting from an action are not fundamentally different from facts and therefore would satisfy the logical positivist principle. However, neither subjectivism nor utilitarianism presents a satisfactory argument, which reduces what is right to an empirical measure. There is no necessary link between that which is approved of or that which produces pleasure and what is right. It is not contradictory for a man to have approved of what is wrong; furthermore, in the case of utilitarianism, it is clear that to say 'x is right' is not equivalent to saying 'x is pleasant.' Therefore these theories fail to present a view of right and wrong, which can result in meaningful ethical language.

Furthermore, the absolutist view of ethics is likewise inadequate at providing a basis by which ethical language can be verified. The absolutist view of ethics postulates that what is right can be verified simply by intuition. Exponents of absolutism often justify their ethical views simply on the basis that they just know; it is something, which is simply true. The problems, however, are evident; if anyone claims to have this moral intuition "invite him, then, to make a list of such rights or laws. It is notorious that adherents of such theories offer lists which differ in substance from each other" (MacIntyre 2002, 225). Absolutist definitions of right are refuted when we see that what may be seen to be right to one man on the basis of his intuition may contradict the conclusion of another on the basis of their intuition. Therefore, absolutism cannot prove that ethical terms have an empirical root and therefore, given that the subjectivist and utilitarian theories have likewise failed, it has been shown that ethical language is meaningless because it cannot be verified by any factual observations.

Hence, the inclusion of ethical-terms in propositions adds no meaning. The example given by Ayer was that to say 'You were wrong in stealing that money' adds no extra meaning to the statement 'You stole that money,' since, as was previously demonstrated, making an ethical statement about the rightness or wrongness of stealing is meaningless. Ayer stated that ethical language, therefore, merely expresses our feelings at the time. Since the supposed factual element of ethical language has been removed, we are merely left with its emotive element.

To conclude, Philosophers have used the logical positivist position to argue that there are no ethical positions, which can support the verification of ethical language by analytic or synthetic methods. Therefore, on the basis of this argument ethical language is rendered meaningless and therefore should only be considered by its emotive content.