• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Explain what scholars mean when they say that ethical statements are no more than expressions of opinion.

Extracts from this document...


Elena Solaro 12E 1. Explain what scholars mean when they say that ethical statements are no more than expressions of opinion. As its name suggests, emotivism is an ethical theory based on people's emotional responses to situations and events in the world around them. However, unlike most moral theories, it is not concerned with 'what is right', and 'what is wrong', instead, emotivism explores the way in which human beings use language to convey what we think is good or bad, right or wrong. In this way, emotivism could be characterised as a moral 'non-theory'. In the nineteen twenties, a group of philosophers, known as the Vienna Circle, were working in Austria, trying to discover how we use language as a means of conveying knowledge. They did not want to know how we gain this knowledge, but simply the method by which we can attempt to explain it. This idea became known 'Logical Positivism', and its fundamental argument was that only propositions or statements which can be verified empirically (using the senses) have meaning. The logical positivists only accepted two types of verifiable language. These were firstly, 'analytic' or 'a priori' propositions. ...read more.


Hurrah!' In conclusion, according to the logical positivists, establishing language as the means by which the truth or falsehood or certain propositions can be demonstrated is the whole point of philosophy. Strictly speaking, if a statement is neither logical nor empirical, in philosophical terms it must be meaningless. Moral statements, which cannot be proved or disproved must therefore be meaningless, and this is where the logical positivists claimed that morality was little more than a matter of like or dislike, 'boo!' or 'hurrah!' 2. How far do you consider these views to be justified? For the most part, emotivism seems like a fairly straightforward idea: each person devises a set of moral guidelines according to their personal opinions and preferences. But is it really this simple? As with all ethical theories, emotivism has been criticised and hotly disputed for a number of reasons. One of the principle problems with emotivism is that if we accept it to be a correct analysis of moral discourse, then all ethical debate is reduced to little more than hot air. We may provide reasons to support our beliefs until we are blue in the face, but in reality, what we are saying will have absolutely no meaning. ...read more.


If this is the case, why then do we have to live by a set of laws and rules. It is impossible to say that statements like "murder is wrong" are a matter of opinion, because if they were, and our society was divided into a group of people who said "murder-Boo!", and a group who said "murder-Hurrah!", then our current laws would not be able to stay in place. We would live in a totally lawless society, where everyone acted as they pleased, without fear of social or legal constraint. I am sure most people would agree with me in saying that the idea in itself is totally ridiculous. In conclusion, I find the views of emotrivism justified only to a small extent. There are numerous criticisms of emotivism, as I have demonstrated. The theory often neglects to take certain facts into account, which we can provide as evidence to support our claims. It also ignores the fact that as humans, we have some sense of what is morally acceptable, even if it is only slight, and completely unexplainable. Although it is often true that we make moral statements according to our personal opinions, and our own experiences may colour our views somewhat, however, this does not mean that our beliefs are meaningless. The human ability to think and argue rationally renders this impossible. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Practical Questions section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Practical Questions essays

  1. Explain the main ethical principle of Christianity.

    of people, and therefore killing him brought about the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. However, even though situation ethics is consistent with utilitarianism, the other frameworks of Christianity are not quite consistent. Natural law states that action must have reason, to aim for good and

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

    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.'

  1. Emotivism as an Ethical Theory

    Adding on to Stevenson's persuasive definitions, evaluative meanings are used to 'prescribe' behaviour. If for example A, decides to argue persuasively that 'euthanasia is wrong' then A is also trying to prescribe both the attitude and behaviour B should adopt.

  2. Emotivism - Explain what scholars mean when they say that ethical statements are no ...

    Stevenson was interested in observing how people use moral terms in everyday conversation. He analyses that general agreements or disagreements occur within them. He also steers to the fact that moral terms either make you attracted to them or repel them and also the fact that you cannot apply analytic or synthetic methods of verification to ethical language.

  1. Explain the importance of good will in Kant's ethical theory.

    One of the first major challenges to Kant's reasoning came from a Swiss philosopher, Benjamin Constant. He said that since truth telling must be universal according to Kant's theory, one must (if asked) tell a known murderer the location of his prey.

  2. Discuss the claim that ethical and religious language is meaningless.

    Analytical or tautological statements can be verified as true by definition i.e. "All bachelors are single men." Synthetic or empirical statements can be verified as true by observation i.e. "All thieves are men." All statements that express unverifiable opinions or emotions are rendered invalid, which includes all religious and ethical statements.

  1. The Ethical Debate Concerning Cloning.

    He questions whether or not a clone can be a moral agent. By giving a child the same genetic makeup at someone who is already alive, do we take something from his or her identity? Will the child be compared to the person from whom the genes came?

  2. How are religious and ethical principles used in the abortion debate?

    If it is a secondary consequence of a primary intention, abortion can be justified. For example, the removal of the mother's womb in cancer treatment has the primary intention to save her life, but the secondary consequence of terminating the pregnancy.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work