People often state moral claims thinking that they are stating the truth. But is it really the truth or is it just a statement backed by emotions and opinions? A.J. Ayer believed that moral claims are neither true nor false. How do you tell a person that the statement that they believe is true is actually just a moral claim and really has no truth to it? They believe it, so to them it is true, so can a moral claim be true? Ayer says that for a statement to be true it needs to be able to be verified by facts and uses the scientific method to get to the facts. So if it cannot be observed then it must not be true? From this belief, Ayer comes to the conclusion that moral claims are not true, but he also comes to the conclusion that they are not false either. This essay will explore Ayer’s view on this topic, but also provide objections to Ayer’s beliefs.
According to A.J. Ayer, a statement must be verified by facts to prove whether it is true or false.
…show more content…
Ayer says that, “The criterion which we use to test the genuineness of apparent statements of fact is the criterion of verifiability” (Ayer 93). A statement can be “emotionally significant” to the person saying it, but this does not necessarily mean that the statement is “literarily significant” (Ayer 93). The statement could be considered true to the person saying it, but because it cannot be verified it cannot actually be considered a true statement. Ayer differentiates between facts and values. For Ayer, facts are what are actually true. Facts are not dependent on anything, they are completely independent and are not affected by any outside biases. Values on the other hand are completely subjective. Values convey a message of opinion and emotion. Values are not independent, they are at the mercy of the emotions and experiences of the person stating the value (Ayer 93-94). To discern the two Ayer says that, “We shall set ourselves to show that in so far as statements of value are significant [meaningful], they are ordinary ‘scientific’ statements; and that in so far as they are not scientific, they are not in the literal sense significant [meaningful], but are simply expressions of emotion which can be neither true nor false” (Ayer 94). Because ethical claims cannot be verified by facts, they are neither true nor false. Ayer does not believe that moral exhortations such as “one ought not to murder” are verifiable. Ayer thinks that moral claims are expressing emotion not facts and are therefor not verifiable. Ayer says that “a sentence is factually significant [meaningful] to any given person, if, and only if, he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express—that is, if he knows what observations would lead him . . . to accept the proposition as being true, or reject it as being false. . . .” (Ayer 93). It is the emotion behind the statement that is making the person say whether it is true or false, it is not fact that is verifying the statement. Ayer says that, “We can now see why it is impossible to find a criterion for determining the validity of ethical judgments. . . . [It is] because they have no objective validity whatsoever. . . . [S]entences which simply express moral judgments do not say anything. They are pure expressions of feeling and as such do not come under the category of truth or falsehood” (Ayer 100). A moral is not something that can be verified by the scientific method. The person stating a moral claim could say as much as they want that their moral claim is true, but because it is not verifiable by the scientific method, Ayer does not believe that the statement is true or false. Ayer believed that all truth comes from the verification by facts. This is similar to what Bacon believed, but Bacon also claimed that this was not the only way to obtain knowledge. For Bacon, areas of study like religion, have their own method of finding the truth like through the Church’s teaching and the Bible. Ayer disagrees with Bacon, believing that truth in all areas of study comes from the verification of facts. He believes that if a claim cannot be completely verified by observations and facts that the statement cannot be true. Through Bacon’s method of thinking, the possibility of religion is still there because he believes that finding the truth can be different for specific areas of study. For Ayer, there is no way to prove that there is a God because God would not be verifiable by facts. There is not a possibility of religion through Ayer’s way of thinking, Ayer himself was an atheist. Saying “I like murder” and “you do not like murder” is essentially the same as saying “I like chocolate” and “You do not like chocolate”. Both statements are making a claim based off of emotions and opinions. Whether someone believes that an action is wrong or right is purely subjective. Ayer says that, “Another man may disagree with me about the wrongness of stealing, in the sense that he may not have the same feelings about stealing as I have. . . . But he cannot, strictly speaking, contradict me. For in saying that a certain type of action is right or wrong, I am not making any factual statement, . . . I am merely expressing certain moral sentiments [feelings]” (Ayer 99). This is not to say that a moral claim is false; it just means that moral claims are not verifiable, so moral claims are neither true nor false. Ayer considers morality to be purely opinion. Moral statements are really just stating personal feeling and emotions. There is nothing that is actually verifiable by factual evidence in the real world standing behind the statement. Ayer believed that all truth comes from the verification by facts. This is similar to what Bacon believed, but Bacon also claimed that this was not the only way to obtain knowledge. For Bacon, areas of study like religion, have their own method of finding the truth like through the Church’s teaching and the Bible. Ayer disagrees with Bacon, believing that truth in all areas of study comes from the verification of facts. He believes that if a claim cannot be completely verified by observations and facts that the statement cannot be true. Through Bacon’s method of thinking, the possibility of religion is still there because he believes that finding the truth can be different for specific areas of study. For Ayer, there is no way to prove that there is a God because God would not be verifiable by facts. There is not a possibility of religion through Ayer’s way of thinking, Ayer himself was an atheist. Moral claims do have have any truth to them.
The person saying it may believe that it is true, but really one cannot judge whether a moral claim really is true or false. Though I could say, “Murder is wrong” and I believe it there is always a but to add to the end. If there was person that was going out and killing people for no reason would it be wrong to kill him to stop him from killing others? So while I believe that murder is wrong, is it wrong to kill someone that is killing other people? So if I make the moral claim that murder is wrong, but someone else makes the moral claim that it is not wrong, there really is no way for either one of us to prove the other person incorrect. We can easily both argue our side of the moral claim, but there is no proof that either one of our statements is false. The only basis of moral claims is emotion, so there is bias behind every moral claim that is made. Because of the emotion that is involved, there is really no way to ever verify whether a moral claim is true or
false. Someone that believes that moral claims are true could say that when you say “rape is wrong” you are speaking the truth. There really is no way around it, no matter what the situation is rape is wrong. There is no situation where rape is okay. To physically attack someone is always going to wrong no matter how you twist the situation. There is no scenario in which a person deserves to be raped. There is no justification that a person could make to say that it was right to rape someone. So even though “rape is wrong” is technically a moral claim, there is truth to it. There are a lot of situations that you could replace rape with. Like kidnapping for example. The statement that “kidnapping is wrong” is also a moral claim, but is also true. There is not a situation where it is okay so steal another person’s child. The kidnapper may try to justify why they did it, but it any situation it is wrong and is against the law. If something is against the law to do, then it is wrong. It may be a moral claim to say that kidnapping or rape is wrong, but both statements are true. Even though these statements cannot be verified by the scientific method, they are still true. Ayer clearly stated that he does not believe that moral claims have any truth to them. He continued to explain that this does not mean that moral claims are false. It just means that because moral claims cannot be verified by facts that they cannot be defined as true. Though they have emotional significance they do not have literary significance. When someone states a moral claim it may be true to them; there could be no convincing them otherwise. This is where Bacon’s ideas come in that when it comes to things like religion, there has to be a different way to find the truth. According to Ayer, though a moral claim may have a true meaning and value to the person stating it, in the real world it has to real value because it cannot be verified by the facts.
Finally, in Beckwith’s fourth point, he evaluates the absurd consequences that follow moral relativist’s arguments. In his final critique, Beckwith uses typical philosophical examples that Mother Teresa was morally better than Adolf Hitler, rape is always wrong, and it is wrong to torture babies. Beckwith argues that for anyone to deny these universal claims is seen as absurd, yet it concludes with moral objectivism that there are in fact universally valid moral positions no matter the culture from which those individuals
It is crucial that every belief must be thoroughly explored and justified to avoid any future repercussions. Clifford provides two examples in which, regardless of the outcome, the party that creates a belief without comprehensive justification ends up at fault. It is possible to apply the situations in The Ethics of Belief to any cases of belief and end up with the conclusion that justification is of utmost importance. Justifying beliefs is so important because even the smallest beliefs affect others in the community, add to the global belief system, and alter the believer moral compass in future decisions.
In the article “Moral Disagreement”, Kwame Anthony Appiah discusses the issue of morality. He uses his cultural background to bring examples of what is the morality of right and wrong. Appiah’s argument is that right and wrong will vary from culture to culture. Even if someone understands a culture completely, they will always have something that they will disagree about. Morality is constantly evolving and changing, and there will always be someone who will argue against a moral concept being right. The following is a rhetorical analysis of Appiah’s credibility, tone, and audience.
For many generations, America has been known as the land of the free and of opportunity but it doesn’t take a genius to see that the land of hypocrisy works just as well to describe it. Freedom is perhaps one of the greatest and yet one of the most unappreciated feelings in the world and obtaining it surely was not easy. Before Americans knew true freedom and equality, there were numerous obstacles in the way that stemmed from its original discovery by Christopher Columbus. If freedom wasn’t being hindered by another nation, it was being hindered by Americans in power which generally included older white males. As a whole, we’ve come a long way from oppression but there are still clear lasting effects. Older white males are still the ones generally in power but that has not stopped other
The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a very important one. We each have our standards of right and wrong, and through the reasoning of individuals, these standards have helped to govern and shape human interactions to what it is today. No other beings except “rational beings,” as Kant calls us, are able to support this higher capability of reason; therefore, it is important for us to consider cases in which this capability is threatened. Such a case is lying. At first, it seems that lying should not be morally permissible, but the moral theories of Kant and Mill have answered both yes and no on this issue. Furthermore, it is difficult to decide which moral theory provides a better approach to this issue. In this paper, we will first walk through the principles of each moral theory, and then we will consider an example that will explore the strengths and weaknesses of each theory.
Carcasses attract scavengers. The Guilty Party by O. Henry showcases the untimely death of a girl of twelve, Liz. Above Chrystie Street on the east side, a strange bird stalks the children of the playground. Although people say it’s a stork, locals call it a vulture. In this case, Liz is the carcass that the vulture sets its eyes on.
that everyone has a moral duty only to believe what is supported by reliable evidence
When one thinks about morals, he or she often find himself in difficulty. It is a fact that morals are mostly passed from one generation to another. However, we all face challenges when trying to understand whether they are all accurate or not. To start with, Morals are those values that normally protect life and always respectful of the dual life value of individual and others. Therefore, Morals are those rules that normally govern actions that re wrong or right. We know that morals may be for all people in the society or individual beliefs in the society. Some of the great morals include freedom, charity, truth, honesty and patience and all of them have a common goal. It is a fact that when they function well in the society, they end up protecting and enhancing life. These morals need to be examined always to make sure that they are performing their mission of protecting life. As a matter of fact, morals are derived from the government and society, self and religion. When morals are derived from the government and society, they tend to change as the morals and laws of the society changes. An example of the changes is seen in the cases of marriage versus individuals living together. It is true that in the past generation, it was quite rare to see any couple living together without having any legal matrimonial ceremony. However, this
In “The Essential Agrarian Reader,” Norman Wirzba claims that “it is only as we are faithful to the particularities and demands of place and accept responsibility for our actions in those places, that we can claim to be moral beings at all” ( Wirzba 95). Without recognizing the effects of our actions on a certain place we cannot consider ourselves moral individuals. In this paper, I will argue that this claim is correct because without a sense of accountability, a connection to morality cannot be made.
Johnson, R. (2013). Kant’s moral philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition). Zalta, E. (Ed.). Retrieved online from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/kant-moral/
“Decreased moral standards and ethics related to ignorance to accepted social behavior standards”. Morality is defined as an understanding and distinguishing right and wrong and behaving according to socially accepted standards (The Definition of Morality, 2002). People can be inconsiderate and conflictful. From the assessment, it was evident that some people have lack of respect to other’s personal properties and even their own. Abandoned houses and trash on properties suggest social and moral degradations. Some of the contributing factors might be poverty, unemployment, and mental illnesses. Lack of morality might be a problem that affects other states and even countries. However, in some areas of Spokane, it is evident that people
There are many arguments for moral realism, one of which is presented by David Enoch, who posits a unique explanation of how normative truths can exist. He argues for moral realism by using his Indispensability Argument, which explains the necessity of normative facts in deliberation. I will argue that Enoch’s claim is valid in that it fairs well against opposition, however it shows weakness by not addressing moral subjectivity.
Harman, G. (2000). Is there a single true morality?. Explaining value and other essays in moral philosophy (pp. 77-99). Oxford: Clarendon Press ;.
The relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.
When considering morality, worthy to note first is that similar to Christian ethics, morality also embodies a specifically Christian distinction. Studying a master theologian such as St. Thomas Aquinas and gathering modern perspectives from James Keenan, S. J. and David Cloutier serve to build a foundation of the high goal of Christian morality. Morality is a primary goal of the faith community, because it is the vehicle for reaching human fulfillment and happiness. Therefore, great value can be placed on foundations of Christian morality such as the breakdown of law from Aquinas, the cultivation of virtues, the role of conscience in achieving morality, and the subject of sin described by Keenan.