Ethical language is meaningless Essay

Ethics is concerned with what is properly and what is wrong(p). Meta- virtuouss however looks at the language, it asks What does it mean to say that or sothing is objurgate hand or wrong. In the quarrel of Pojman, normative ethics is a philosophical examination of morality, meta-ethics is philosophising well-nigh ethics -that is, about the very terms and structure of honest theories. I aim to explore the claim that all estimable language is meatless by looking at some of the common educational activitys used in the honourable language and what they actually mean. Firstly let me upshot the question itself- what comely is ethical language? Dr Richard Paul defines ethics as a desexualize of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behaviour helps or harms animate creatures.Paul also states that most great deal confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with peoples religious beliefs and the law, and dont hide ethics as a stand-alone concept. However, according to the dictionary ethics is defined as the study of moralitys effect on conduct the study of moral standards and how they affect conduct. With people delimit ethics in different ways, ethical disputations would have contrasting meanings depending on how you viewed the actual term ethical.This idea of looking into the language of a statement before determining whether the moment/notion would be right or wrong is called meta-ethics. This view of language limits its meaning to something that great deal be corroborate by sense experience (i.e. proven true or false). This view can be found in the works of Wittgenstein in Tractatus (1921). This initial view went on to influence a group of philosophers cognize as the Vienna Circle who developed the idea of positivism.This accordingly influenced A J Ayer who claimed in his publication of Language, Truth and Logic that in that respect be only cardinal kinds of proposition being the truths known by definition, and the tru ths known by reference to sense experience. For example, to Ayer all bachelors are widowed would be known as a tautology because this is correct by definition and thus claims nothing. However, That man is a bachelor can be either proven false or true by utilise external facts (i.e. does he wear a wedding ring etc.). ToAyer both(prenominal) these statements would be meaningful as they can be proven true. However, an ethical statement such as abortion is wrong cannot be verified analytically or synthetically (like the examples before could be) and so arent meaningful.On the other hand, F H Bradley argued that the supreme good for mankind was self-realisation, meaning that we choose to go one way or another in life, so that we can join the wider community. Morality to Bradley is about the actions you take which run the character that you are. This is known as metaphysical ethics and is often referred to as depending on two abstract ideas. The first being the world as a whole and th e second being self-realisation. Neither of these ideas can be bring down to the sort of empirical evidence that the logical positivists such as Ayer would say, can determine whether it has meaning. therefore Bradley would say that ethical statements are meaningful. I agree with Bradley in that I can see how you can suss out the world as a whole and individual peoples inner characters I have to disagree with the overall tone that for a statement to have meaning it must fit into one of two categories. Not everything can be proven by means of science or experience, but that is not to say it does not have meaning to some people.R M Hare agreed with my thoughts as he shake off forward his approach of Prescriptivism. He argued that an ethical statement prescribes a score of action and tells you what one ought to do. It is stronger than just a suggestion of how to behave, but at the same time is more than a command because commands are cerebrate to specific things at specific time s, i.e. you should tidy your room would have meaning. An ethical statement is a general command of how to behave, making it both prescriptive and universalisable. Therefore one can apply logic to the statement and can deduce whether they should follow the statement or not. Hare would not string the decision so black and white that the statement is either right or wrong but would instead say yes I hypothesize I agree with the statement and I intend to follow what it says. Therefore these statements are full of meaning as they prescribe how one should act.Having verbalise that, m any(prenominal) people would not be happy with the above end point as it is down to the individual and could arguably make excuses for actions that people may do. By following Ayers argument it is much simpler and universal as it is not down to the individual, it is either right or wrong through science and facts. Ayer, an emotivist, also felt that ethical statements are not just expressions of the indiv idual persons emotion but also of their spot towards the situation. A good example to use- if I say capital penalty is wrong, its because I have an attitude opposed to capital penalisation which is formed due to my beliefs. Therefore Ayer compared these ethical statements to the laughs and boos and hisses the cheers and the screams that people may section in the audience of a debate.The statements are meaningless and add no weight to the situation. For example, saying that generosity is good you are saying hoorah for charity work and nothing more. We would simply be expressing our attitude towards that topic or situation, and in the words of Ayer I am not making any factual statement I am merely expressing certain moral sentiments. Moral and ethical arguments serve no real purpose as everyone has their own opinion but who are we to say which opinion is right? We cannot know from peoples own expressions whether a moral statement is right or wrong, and therefore will come to no o utcome so all ethical statements are meaningless.C.L Stevenson took this further and developed Ayers emotivism. Stevenson felt that whilst Peoples subjective opinions are often establish on objective facts so meaningful ethical discourse could take place. For example if I say war is wrong it is my opinion and strictly subjective. However if we say that war is wrong because 10000 people were killed innocently that is objective and factual evidence as to why so umteen people believe war is wrong. Therefore ethical statements can be meaningful. Ethical statements also include a persuasive element, which encourages other people to adopt the same attitudes/beliefs as us. Here Stevenson bridges both prescriptivism and emotivism together, and believes that ethical statements are meaningful.My opinion, however, would be that most people in society would be able to recognise that an ethical statement such as It is wrong to murder is prescribing a course of action that will benefit the sym metricalness of society. Iagree with R M Hare that an ethical statement is meaningful as it provides a guide as to how you should go about your daily lives. Language in general can have some(prenominal) meanings, but this still means each has a meaning. Ethical statements are made up of language, therefore each statement in my opinion is meaningful. You cannot make the decision of whether ethical language has meaning purely establish on logic and evidence through experience- some things cannot be reduced to these categories, but that does not mean some people dont consider this language as meaningless.