‘All ethical language is meaningless’ Discuss.

In order to fully answer this question we must first address what is meant by the term ‘meaning’, as there is a notable difference between something that has literal meaning and that, which has scientific meaning. A statement that holds scientific meaning is arguably one that discusses empirically verifiable facts, while a statement with literal meaning is one that discusses matter in its most basic sense. Before assessing the problems of ethics, philosophers must first deduce whether ethical language itself, can have any analytical meaning. This question divides philosophers into those who hold that ethical language can have meaning and those that don’t.

Historically, cognitivist approaches, like the naturalist theories, are most common as they state that ethical language does hold meaning and teach that things that bring us pleasure are generally moral. This belief has remained popular as it links with the idea of a Judaeo-Christian God who is imminent and omnibenevolent; many theists would hasten to reject the claim that we are unable to speak about God, as this weakens the connection between God and the world.  Thomas Aquinas held this approach and due to this, rejected the use of via negativa, as a method of discussing God. Similar to W.R. Inge, Aquinas felt that to use via negativa was to distance God from humanity. Instead, Aquinas argues that while human language is inadequate in describing God, that isn’t to say it is meaningless. Aquinas accepts languages inadequacies but explains that language can hold significance if it is univocal, equivocal or analogical, as it is better to relate some meaning to God, rather than having complete silence about him. This argument holds force as it satisfies the Christian desire for a close relationship with God, while still tackling the problems faced by ethical language. Aquinas accepts our limitations but provides an argument for the inherent link between our world, and God. However, Aquinas’s argument rests on the assumption that we have enough knowledge of God, and the world, to be able to relate him to elements within it. 

G.E. Moore would find fault in this assumption due to his explanation of the naturalistic fallacy, which states that good is an indefinable property that cannot be identified in relation to natural properties like pleasure. If we cannot define good, based on its relation to nature, then we therefore should not be able to describe God in relation to the world. Despite this, Moore’s theory of intuitionism supports the notion that we can, through some inherent inner force, know what is right and wrong, and therefore we are able to discuss God in relation to this innate knowledge.  Therefore, Moore’s theory arguably suggests that while religious language isn’t meaningless, the way it is used often falls into this ‘naturalistic fallacy’, and therefore it cannot always be trusted. Moore’s position is strong, as it doesn’t rule out all ethical language but avoids it being used in a synthetic, unverifiable way. However, for logical positivists, such as A.J. Ayer, this argument is unsatisfactory, as the concept of intuitionism itself, cannot be verified.