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

Explain why there maybe problems about the meaning of ethical language

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Explain why there maybe problems about the meaning of ethical language. (12) Discuss possible solutions to these problems. (8) Ethical language uses words, terms and phrases from normal language, but they normally do not have the same meaning. Words such as; 'good' have a variety of meanings in the normal everyday use, but also have several different meanings when used in moral philosophy. For example, the dictionary gives the following definitions of the word good; 'having the right or desired qualities, satisfactory, adequate, efficient, competent, reliable, strong, kind, benevolent, morally excellent, virtuous, charitable, well-behaved, enjoyable, agreeable, thorough, considerable.' Then 'good' can be used to mean the following in moral philosophy; an inherent quality which is widely beneficial, the opposite of bad or evil, something one or more persons approves of, useful in that the good action/concept/attitude enriches human life, or God-like or what God wants. The same problem applies to many other words within the English language, however is best illustrated by the word 'good'. ...read more.

Middle

For example, if a woman desperately wanted children but this was impossible except through fertility treatment, many would say that she ought to be offered fertility treatment. In this case the 'is' statement is; a marries woman wants a child, and the 'ought' statement is; she should be offered IVF. G E Moore would argue that the 'ought' statement does not logically follow from the 'is' statement, but there has to be an intermediate statement, however this would also be an 'ought; statement. JR Searle, argues that you can move from an 'is' to an 'ought', his argument is as follows; Jones says, 'I promise to pay you $5 Smith, Jones has, therefore, offered to pay Smith $5, Jones has voluntarily put himself under obligation to pay Smith the money, Jones is, therefore, under obligation to pay, Jones ought to pay Smith $5. In this argument the first four statements are all 'is' statements, and the last is an 'ought' statement. ...read more.

Conclusion

Moreover, there is the Naturalistic Fallacy, which is the is-ought debate; whether it is possible to move from an 'is' statement to an 'ought' statement. Furthermore, according to some people some ethical statements are 'meaningless', it could be argued that this is because of the ethical language used. The only possible solution to there being room for misinterpretation of words because they have many different meanings, is to create new words which have there own specific definition which is agreed on by all. Or just to have agreed on definitions of all words used in ethical language such as 'good', however this is not likely to work. The problem of the naturalistic Fallacy for ethical language cannot be readily solved, the only possibility is, in my opinion, for it to be accepted by all moral philosophers that you cannot move form an 'is' to an 'ought'. The same applies for the 'meaningless' statements, I agree with the logical positivists and see statements which cannot be verified in any way as 'meaningless'. Thomas Taylor ...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. Religious Language cannot be proved, therefore it is meaningless

    individuals and communities, if a statement about God is understood to be true within a form of life then it should be seen as true, whether or not it corresponds with the state of affairs is irrelevant. Consequently when an anti-realists says a statement such as 'god exists' this means

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

    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.'

  1. Explain what scholars mean when they say that ethical statements are no more than ...

    In doing so, he defended reductionist analyses of the self, the external world, and other minds.' (6) An example of this could be a catholic saying 'Abortion is wrong.' Someone else might disagree, and believe perhaps abortion ok. However, this view could be criticised.

  2. The Teleological Argument

    Hume also criticises Paley's design qua purpose argument; he does not think that the analogy to compare with the universe and the watch. The universe is something that grows of its own accord rather than something made by hand. Furthermore, the stability and order is not the result of a

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

    Also, why, if my moral obligations are self-evident, do I have dilemmas over conflicting duties? The issue of verification is also raised; intuition may be considered to be a meaningless concept itself, since it is non-verifiable. The meaning of language and the principle of verification was at the forefront of debate in the 20th Century movement known as Logical Positivism.

  2. Explain what scholars mean when they say that ethical statements are no more than ...

    The principle states that we know the meaning of a statement if we know the conditions under which that statement is true or false. The logical positivists used the verification principle to argue that discussing such things as God, ethics, or metaphysics is utterly pointless.

  1. Modern life-prolonging technologies have sharpened some ancient dilemmas on the value of life.

    of another's life, and when death can result from one possible judgment. Insofar as QL proponents can seek to advance the subject's own preferences, and not only through offensively general presumptions, "paternalism" is certainly not the right word for this practice.

  2. "It is impossible to reconcile any kind of determinism with the concept of freewill." ...

    For God to hold man morally accountable, yet to predestine everything that man thinks or does, something other than the "freedom of contraries" must ground this accountability. Calvinists believe that this something is the capacity of man to choose and act according to his moral state of being, the "freedom of choice".

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