different views.
Cognitivist views about moral language suggest that moral
statements are about facts, things that are true or false. Moral
statements are suggestion. They make a suggestion that a situation is,
or is not, the case. E.g. ‘the cat is black’. We can ask questions about
whether this is a true or false statements, then the question will make
sense. If something can be known, then it is available to cognition
(knowledge), which is why this approach is called cognitivist.
Naturalist approaches to ethical language treat moral statements as
propositions in the same way as other non-moral statements. We can
find out whether a statement is true or false by looking closely at the
evidence. Ethical naturalists believe that it is equally possibly to
establish morals facts and non-moral facts by looking at the
evidence.
G.E Moore had a cognitivist view on ethical language. He believed
that it is still possible for us to decide whether a moral statement is
true or false, even if we cannot use our powers of observation to give
us the answers. He said that moral and ethical language cannot be
defined through facts, if you want to find the goodness of moral
actions you can find it through intuition or ‘instinct’. We use our
moral intuition and although we cannot explain how we know when
something is good, we do still recognise goodness when we see it,
we just know it.
Non-Cognitivist believes that moral statements are not propositions
at all, but perform some other, different function in language. Non-
propositional language is the name for the kinds of sayings that are
either true or false and do not propose anything. A non-cognitivist
view of moral language holds that moral statements are non-
propositional; where the statement ‘Abortion is wrong’, is true or
false cannot be known..
Emotivism is expressed by Ayer, is the view that when we make
moral statements, such as ‘stealing is wrong’, we are not talking
about any objective facts which can be known, but we Are
expressing out emotions or feelings about the issue. C.L Stevenson
has a similar, non-cognitivist view. He has the same opinion that
ethical statements are expressions of opinions, and he also believed
that these opinions are not just subjective beliefs, but are based on
the ways of the world.
The slight difference between Ayer and Stevenson is that if Ayer were
to say, ‘X is good’, he would mean, ‘Hooray to X, I like X’, signifying
that we not making a factual statement, but simply expressing out
emotions about X. Where as if Stevenson were to say ‘X is good’, he
would mean, ‘I approve of X and would like you to do so, too’,
indicating that we use persuasive definitions and are not just
expressing out feelings, but also persuading the feelings of others.
Prescriptivism, still a non-cognitivist view, but is another approach to
emotivism. It was developed by R.M Hare, his view declared that
when we make moral statements, we a re not only expressing out
feelings but are encouraging others to share our attitudes. We are
prescribing out opinions, recommending that our listeners adopt our
approach. If Hare were to say, ‘X is good’ he means that, ‘I prescribe
X to myself and everybody else’.
