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

Ethical language is meaningless. Discuss.

Extracts from this document...


Transfer-Encoding: chunked ?Ethical language is meaningless.? Discuss. Meta-ethics is the term used to describe the analysis of ethical language; it looks at the questions raised about ethical language such as whether we are stating facts or just opinions when using ethical language. Many people believe that ethical language is about facts that are either right or wrong, for example, ?abortion is wrong,? but others believe moral facts are based on the beliefs and feelings of a person, for example, ?abortion is wrong because it goes against the sanctity of life.? Therefore, ethical statements are not always just about moral facts, but are statements based on our feelings. These statements cannot be made true or false, as they may be expressions of a view that may not be shared by everyone. When talking about ethical language, people use words such as ?good? and ?bad? which are usually used to express one?s own feelings and so this raises the question of whether ethical language is meaningless since it is an opinion rather than a fact. There are two different philosophical approaches to this question. The first approach I will look at is the cognitive approach. According to cognitivists, moral statements describe the world and everyone can have moral knowledge. ...read more.


He listed seven classes of prima facie duties: duties of fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement, non-maleficence. Ross says that when these duties conflict, we must follow the one we think it right in the situation, and sometimes one duty will have to give way to another. The duty a person thinks is right in a situation will depend on a person?s moral maturity. According to intuition, religious language is meaningful because people have certain intuitions about right and wrong. The problem with intuitionism is that it claims that we know what is good by intuition and not by empirical evidence but this is not proved by Moore ? he says you either agree with him or have not thought about it properly. However, it would seem that if the naturalistic fallacy shows that you cannot conclude value judgements from natural facts by means of evidence obtained through the senses, then the idea of ?non-natural? facts and a special ?intuition? does not make sense. Some philosophers say that out emotions and practical wisdom gave us this intuitive knowledge. Also, we cannot be sure that intuitions are correct since people may come to different conclusions, whether they use intuition or reason to come to their decisions. ...read more.


Hare ? is prescriptivism. He tried to show that the role of ethical statements is to say what ought to be done and such prescriptions are moral because they are universal. Hare argues that other theories, such as emotivism try to explain what we are doing when we make ethical judgements. Hare said that although these approaches are useful, universal prescriptivism is superior. It says ?you ought to do this? and so everyone should do the same in similar situations. Ethical statements are prescriptive, which means they do not state facts and are not true or false, but they are imperatives that express our will or wishes. The word ?good? always has a descriptive meaning. If we use the word ?good? in a moral sense, again we are using a set of standards that apply to a person or an action and we commend that person or action. This means that the word ?good? also has a good has a prescriptivism meaning, and when we use words with an ethical meaning we use them prescriptively. Prescriptivism suggests that, to achieve consistency in moral judgements, when we say that someone else ought to do something, we ought to do it as well. So according to prescriptivism, ethical language is meaningful. A problem with prescriptivism is that if moral judgements are founded on prescriptions, this still does not mean that there is a valid reason for following one person?s prescriptions rather than another?s. ...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 Philosophy 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 Philosophy essays

  1. "Religious Language is meaningless." Discuss.

    logical contradiction in holding the belief and if some allowance is made for human trust. The responses to logical positivism have been split into three categories: Capitulation (giving into the challenge), Accommodation (accommodating the challenge but trying to find the evidence against it)

  2. Religious language is meaningless. Discuss.

    This therefore shows that religious language can be accepted as meaningful, even through the verification principle's very own criteria and so rejects the statement. Also,it doesn't take into account factors which may prevent an individual from being able to verify a statement.

  1. Our freedom to make ethical choices is an illusion Discuss

    They believe that all or actions had prior causes and we are neither free nor responsible. A person is like a machine when a machine is faulty it needs fixing. A person cannot be blamed for their violence; violence needs fixing or if not imprisoned.

  2. Religious language is meaningless, Discuss

    It can only be verified the day we die. Anthony Flew put forward the falsification principle. Falsification means to prove something true or false. The falsification principle accepts a statement is verifiable if it is known what empirical evidence could count against it and prove it wrong. Anthony Flew concluded statements are meaningless as there is nothing to count against religious statements.

  1. Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an unfair system of ethics which could not work in the ...

    There's nothing in utilitarianism that prevents the total sacrifice of one pleasure for the benefit of the whole. Five bullies get pleasure from torturing one single boy. His pleasure is sacrificed for greater benefit of theirs, which is, of course, absurd. In his book, 'A Short History of Ethics (1966)

  2. Science Solves All The Problems About Where We Come From Discuss

    Henry Morris is a strict Creationist (one who believes in the exact account of the creation story, as recorded in Genesis 1 and 2). In his book, Biblical Creationism, Morris denies the idea of evolution, and even the compromise that some people has reached that the word "days" as stated

  1. Critically assess the claim that religious language is meaningless.

    Some scholars have claimed that the verification principle is far too strong since it not only outlaws religious language but it also makes much of what humans speak and write about as meaningless as well, including art, beauty and our inner feeling and sensations.

  2. Conscience is innate. Discuss

    If an individual were to carry out and action which was bad then the blame would be placed on the child?s upbringing or that they are just a morally bad person that is unable to distinguish the difference between right or wrong, or that they do know what the right

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