Year 13 Religious Studies student Maddie has been studying ethics and meta-ethics – a branch of moral philosophy concerned with the meaning and use of moral language. In her essay below, she responds to the above statement, examining the views of key philosophers and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the claim.
Meta Ethics is the philosophical study of moral thought and the meaning of moral and ethical language. The prefix ‘meta’, translated from Latin, means ‘beyond’, and several philosophers have concluded what they believe the meaning of language, such as ‘right’ and ‘wrong, is by considering what lies beyond a moral action. Ethical statements could be said to be no more than emotional expression depending on whether one takes a cognitive approach, like Aquinas’s Naturalism or Moore’s Intuitionism, who argue that moral language is absolute and self-verified. Or, whether one takes a non-cognitive stance, like emotivism, and argue that moral language is subjective and cannot be verified. Emotivists, such as Ayer, believe that moral language is ‘meaningless’ as it is just our expression of emotion. However, it is clear that holding such a view dismisses the importance of morality as a concept and the significance of human interaction and purpose. Therefore, it will be concluded that ethical language is more than just emotional opinion.
Logical positivist A J Ayer created the ‘Boo-Hoorah’ theory to argue that moral statements are just expression of opinion. For example, to say ‘murder is wrong’ is simply saying ‘Boo’ to murder and expressing your negative opinion on murder. Using his non-cognitive theory, he stated that there are no absolute moral facts, as moral language is just personal opinion. Only analytic facts in science and synthetic statements, such as ‘the sky is blue’, can be verified because there is clear evidence to confirm or deny what is ‘right and wrong’ in this sense, but not ‘right and wrong’ in a moral sense. Whilst this solves cultural relativism, allowing different cultures to have their own moral codes, it also creates a dilemma in general society, as Ayer neglects the importance of how moral language can shape societal norms, such as being kind to others. He essentially states that ethical language, and therefore moral action, is meaningless. This creates a disharmony in society as everyone can do what they like if it all means nothing. However, Ayer’s argument is flawed and therefore shows that ethical language is more than expressions of emotion, due to the laws in society, such as ‘do not murder’, being shaped around moral thought.
Philosopher F. H. Bradley would disagree with Ayer’s theory, as he argued that goodness is a natural aspect in society. He stated that each person’s meaning of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ depends on individual ‘stations’, meaning that we can see what goodness is by looking at society. For example, a doctor’s good is taking care of the sick and injured, whilst a police officer’s good is ensuring the set laws in society are followed. Bradley argued that morality is absolute but, depending on our ‘station’, our duties change. Furthermore, he stated that if a societal law is that ‘murder is wrong’ then that is a verifiable fact and concludes morality, thus showing that ethical language is absolute and much more than expression of emotion. Likewise, ethical naturalists, such as Mill and Aquinas, would argue that we can conclude that something is good or bad through observation and analysis. Mill takes a hedonistic (secular) approach and used his utilitarianism argument that we can see morality by how much ‘pleasure’ it causes. He argued that something is considered moral based on the Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP). This asserts that a moral action is one which creates the greatest amount of ‘pleasure’ for the greatest number of people and reduces ‘suffering’ for the most amount of people. Aquinas, contrastingly, takes a theological approach and argues that morality can be observed in the Natural Laws that God has presented us with. He stated that ‘good is to be done and evil is to be avoided’ and one can achieve this by following God’s ‘Eternal Law’ of morality. For Bradley, Mill and Aquinas, morality is naturalistic and more than just expressions of emotions, which allows moral language to be factual and therefore universal.
However, Stevenson would argue that ethical language cannot be objective, as laws are just emotions used to persuade others into a set way of thinking. He stated that ‘your ethical judgement has to be a quasi-imperative force’, meaning that people will respond to the tone of your voice and the suggestion it creates. This suggests that ‘moral facts’ are just other people’s influences, emotions and opinions, and are therefore not verifiable facts at all. Similarly, philosopher Hume stated that Bradley, Mill and Aquinas make a Naturalistic fallacy, believing that if something is natural then it must be good. He would argue that Naturalism is illogical and uses his ‘is/ought complex’ to show that just because something exists, it does not mean we can derive something we ought to do from it. For example, if a cigarette is easy to buy at a shop, it does not mean you ought to buy one every day. This shows that one cannot conclude what is ‘right and wrong’ from external factors. Stevenson stated that moral language is ‘the object of feeling, not reason’, thus arguing that ethical language is no more than emotional expression.
Moore, to contrast this, took a cognitive stance. Whilst he argued that good cannot be defined, we know what is ‘right and wrong’ using our ‘intuition’ and ‘reason’, not our emotions. He used the concept of ‘complex’ and ‘simple’ ideas. A complex idea can be broken down: a horse is a mammal, for example. However, a simple idea cannot be broken down or defined, it can only be described: the sun is yellow. He argued that ‘good is good’ and a simple idea, as good is perceived and described: for example, ‘good’ is giving to charity. However, it cannot be defined as a single concept because it is known intuitively. As it cannot be defined or have a subjective nature, emotions are not involved. Similarly, Ross developed his ‘Prima Facie duties’ in his approach to moral language. He also argued in favour of intuitionism and believed that our human intuition and reason can prioritise which moral duties will be the most ‘right’ in different situations. An example of one such duty is ‘justice’. He argued that we can use our intuition to rank the importance of justice accordingly. For example, if we had witnessed a crime we must prioritise acting with justice, whereas on another occasion we may have received a lovely Christmas present and a duty such as ‘gratitude’ would be more fitting. Once again, this shows that moral language is more than just emotional expression and involves our rationality and innate sense of duty. However, Goleman would oppose this and state that our emotions will act before our reason and intuition, so therefore ethical language is just emotional bias and opinion as that is our primary arriving force as humans.
To contrast, Phillipa Foot argued that emotivism trivialises ethical issues. She completely opposes emotivism and argues that one cannot state that moral language is meaningless or subjective because this allows things that are categorically evil, such as the Holocaust, to be considered as meaningless or a simple expression of emotion. It ignores the suffering and almost allows these actions to be ignored. Similarly, Macintyre states, ‘The emotivist is unable to distinguish between my dislike of curries and my dislike of genocide,’ and it is clear that this is a key flaw in the emotivist’s approach. To say that immense suffering is due to meaningless emotion acting as ethical language is in itself ‘wrong’. It is clear that some actions are just too extreme to be simplified into unverifiable emotion and not a concrete example of what ‘wrong’ means.
Overall, without substance to moral language, other than emotions, society would fall into ruin, as there would be no guidelines and no purpose in ethical action or performances from humans. This is arguably incorrect, as it is clear that emotions are an effect of moral language, not a cause or expression. I am therefore concluding that ethical language is more complex than simply emotional expression.
