Moral statements are simply covert descriptions of emotions or recommendations for action. Discuss this view, with reference to Logical positivism and its implications for ethics.

AS and A Level Religious Studies & Philosophy

In the world we live in today we are constantly being surrounded by moral choices and decisions about what would be the right thing to do. But Meta-ethics attempts to understand what the meaning of these words we use to describe moral situations such as right and wrong. When first trying to understand Meta ethics a person will try to divide situations into fact and opinions. But there can be no certain facts in Meta ethics is it applies to people own responses to a situation. But there is a way we respond to situations can be separated in empirical evidence (using five senses. These are questions that philosophers of meta- ethics try to answer, and they have taken a variety off different approach, which can be categorised in a variety of ways. In most cases the approaches are cognitisvism and non-cognitisvism.

The first argument disagrees with this statement is cognitisvism People who hold cognitivist views about moral language believe that moral statements are about simply about facts, which are true or false. According to cognitivists moral statements are propositions they make a proposals. They also believe that moral values can be derived from empirical sense experience. We can verify the truth of these by asking questions. For example Arsenal won the premiership title in 2002 or during the war on Iraq some Iraqis died. By applying this to moral situations you could say that it is wrong to kill people or helping an old lady cross the road is good, we are able to prove this by the way we feel to these situations by using our five senses. A naturalist will draw conclusions from non-ethical statements, for example The war on Iraq ended human life therefore it was wrong.

Absolutist also proves that this statement is untrue. Absolutists believe that there is a moral value that is always true in all situations and for all people. This proves that ethics is not just about opinions but also consists of certain fact that can no way can be proved wrong for example it is always wrong to drown a four year old girl. But on the other hand it also agrees with the statements as is only giving recommendations on the way people should act.

Logical positivism is that the only real things are those that are either empirically provable ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Logical positivism is that the only real things are those that are either empirically provable or logically necessary. Logical positivists argue that a statement was not shown to relate external, observable facts, and then it was meaningless. By this they mean that they cannot be disproved or proven. This contradicts the statement as it can always be proved which links with cognitisvism.

However there are also many approaches to ethics that agree with this statement. Non-cognitivists believe that moral statements are not propositions at all, but perform some other, different function in language. This is the complete opposite of cognitisvism, as they believe ethical statements cannot be derived from empirical sense experience. They believe that there can be no such thing as simply true and false. A non-cognitivist believes that moral statements are not propositions at all and perform some other different use in language. For example non-propsitional language includes statements that cannot be proved e.g. have a nice day. As there is no right or wrong a statement such as the war in Iraq was wrong cannot be known, as it is not a statement of fact. They also argue that moral language is not objective. It only expresses opinions, which refers to the above statement.

Another group that will agree with the above statements is relativists. Relativists believe that there are no absolute moral norms. This view holds that each situation needs to be examined individually. This shows that morality does not relate to any absolute standards of right and wrong. For example in some situations it would be right to kill someone if they were in extreme pain.

Moral truths can also be known by intuition, a special kind of perception. If we cannot differentiate good and bad using empirical evidence then we can use moral intuition. There are something’s we just know, we are able to recognise it when we see it. Moore compared it to trying to describe colour to a blind person who has never seen in their life. We are able to recognise and give examples of the colour but could never describe what it actually is. People will make a lot of important decisions based on gut instinct or intuition including moral decisions. This supports the statement as it just involves people using their instincts or feeling to describe situations. But intuitionists believe that good can be known and that it is not just a matter of opinion, but it something that we certain about. Therefore intuitionism can either support or disapprove the argument.

Emotivism is a theory in descriptive that holds that all moral judgments are simply expressions of positive or negative feelings and that, as such all moral statements are meaningless as they cannot be verified. Ayer believed moral language does not deal with objective knowable facts, but rather opinions. He believed that when we made a statement we are simply expressing an emotion. This is an interesting opinion as it draws our intention how moral statements may change during due to our own feelings and upbringing. Emotivism agrees with the statement fully as it shows how we let our own emotions dictate our moral judgements.

Another approach is prescriptivism, which is related to Emotivism. They agree that moral statements are basically expressions of opinion rather than fact. He claimed that when we make moral decisions we are simply using our opinions instead of emotion. We are “prescribing”. For example when a policeman tells a 12 year old to stop smoking he is not telling him why he should not do that, but instead giving him guidance or prescribing his opinions onto him. This agrees with the second part of the statement as it shows how people would rather recommend actions rather actually thinking why someone should not do something.

To conclude Meta-ethics consists of many different views on how people come up with their own moral judgments. The views are complex and are constantly contradicting each other. For every theory there is, there will always be another that criticises it or is its complete opposite. But all people are different with their own perspective on a situation and cannot simply be placed in a group. Moral statements are there to give philosophers a certain sense of control to make them feel that they can categorise people’s opinions into their own recommendations. Therefore I agree with the statement.

Mark Strachan 12.6