• 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.

    Well the example of the man stealing for his family is consistent with situation ethics. He steals, which is wrong, but in that situation, he is doing the most loving thing for his starving family by giving them food. It is the same with the example with Hitler.

  2. Explain why there maybe problems about the meaning of ethical language

    set of duties which exist in their own right, and can be uncovered through human reason, philosophers such as Kant believe this to be the case. Therefore, if people interpret words in differing ways when people can have a conversation or read books they may misinterpret the meaning of ethical language.

  1. Examine the differences in ethical and Christian views concerning homosexuality

    The obvious problem with this is that we cannot know the outcome of any action and so we cannot determine what the most loving thing to do would be. But in the situation where two people love each other very much and feel that they must find a way to

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

    Does the law make something right? Is it always right to obey the law? It could be asserted that Kant's theory and his views on suicide would dismiss any idea of voluntary euthanasia. However, this is not so. Kant places a high emphasis on human freedom, and his principle of autonomy could well defend the idea of voluntary euthanasia.

  1. The Ethical Debate Concerning Cloning.

    This argument is circular and if we maintain that it is impermissible to experiment on humans the cloning of humans will never happen. The third argument that Kass uses deals with the possible effects on the child if she is born without physical problems.

  2. Emotivism as an Ethical Theory

    A's attitude towards euthanasia is going to be affected by his attitudes towards these associated doctrines. Each of these may conflict to some degree with another set of doctrines or theories held by B. Therefore, B's attitude towards euthanasia will be different to A's.

  1. Ethical Theories are of no help when discussing matters of sex and relationships

    Hume might argue that Aquinas commits the naturalistic fallacy of deriving an 'ought' from an 'is'; one should examine the world as it is, rather than deriving from appearances how the world should be without qualification. Kant Kant's 'Duties towards the body in respect of sexual impulse' (Lectures on Ethics 1775-80: Ch15)

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

    Those who are rational and faithful would find five primary precepts; basic moral commands which God has embedded in nature: to preserve life, reproduce, educate, live in society, and worship God. The first of these to protect and preserve human life, is widely used to argue that killing is intrinsically

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