Ethics refer to the moral principles that govern the behaviors of the individual in the society. It defines moral principles including what individuals are allowed to do or not to do. As a branch, ethics has significantly spread to cover virtually all tenets of the social, economic, and political life. Although the critical role that ethics hold in the society, several scholars have provided an unconventional rationale of ethics claiming that it is nonsensical. Ludwig Wittgenstein and A. J Ayer challenged the veracity of the ethics and its position as the moral compass governing human behavior.
Wittgenstein, in his “Lecture of Ethics” posits that ethical statements are nonsense. He further noted that it was only essential for everybody to speak on their behalf when it comes to matters regarding ethics (Pianalto, 2011). Ayer on his part focused on the differences between facts and value when discussing issues of ethics. He concludes that moral utterances have no significant value as long as there is no valid rationale for proving the assertions. Therefore, the two theorists provide an emotivism point of view which essentially states that one can only speak for themselves regarding matters of ethical standing.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Secondly, Wittgenstein perceives a world that lacks values. In his conception, the world is merely a place consisting of a series of happenings and facts. All these happenings are logical and casual in nature. As such, it would be wrong for any individual to claim that a value exists, and if it indeed existed, it had no significance. He further asserts that characteristics such as good and evil are not subject to this world but rather exist outside. On the other hand, Ayer felt that values were an expression of how individuals felt. For instance, when we say that killing is wrong and honesty is right, it is only a way of making people agree with a particular expression made by an individual (Ayer, 2012).
Wittgenstein continues by illuminating the difference between values and facts. He asserts that values are unconditional, non-accidental, and most significantly, lack empirical content. Their nature is from an intuitive perception of reality. In his mind, values can only exist in the supernatural world and hence difficult to express them through the means of language. However, Ayer does not hold a similar conception of ethics. Although he believes that values are present in the physical world, they do not matter because they are subject to personal opinion. For him, they are present in the physical world and can be evidenced based on whether it is fixed within the realms of an individual.
The two philosophers primarily say the same thing. Both of them believe that ethics should never have existed in the first place and most importantly, should not form any meaningful standard of life. Using the concept of emotivism, the two philosophers believe that ethics should be allowed to exist only as a matter of personal opinion. However, since they cannot be measured empirically or differentiated from personal opinion, the society should not use them to reinforce guidelines in the society. The two also agree on the fact that ethics is not necessarily the truth. It is about the expression of emotion and opinions that should not be contextualized to reflect the assertions of the entire society or nation. Until when they can be proven empirical, ethics should be regarded as personal views.
References
Pianalto, M. (2011). Speaking for oneself: Wittgenstein on ethics. The inquiry, 54(3), 252-276.
Ayer, A. J. (2012). The Emotive Theory of Ethics. Ethics: Essential Readings in Moral Theory, 103.
