Ayer believes that moral judgements express no propositions instead they express emotions preferences of the person expressing them. Hence, moral judgements are “meaningless” as sentences such as “Murder is wrong” or “Littering is bad” are not truth apt instead they just express one’s feelings. This train of thought is viewed as being counter intuitive as most humans live their lives believing that there are indeed actual moral facts. The way we speak and act is based on certain moral values that we believe in. Therefore, humans tend to believe in the existence of moral facts. In this paper, I will argue that no matter how seemingly against common sense Ayer’s views are, there are reasons to accept his conclusion. In modern times, the argument
…show more content…
Synthetic statements are statements that can confirmed by observations and through experiences. However moral judgements like “Murder is Wrong” is unable to be clearly proven. Humans are unable to show ‘wrongness’ or test ‘wrongness’ empirically. Analytic statements are factually true based on the definition of the words in the statements itself. Hence by saying the statement ‘Murder is wrong’ we are ascribing the property of ‘wrongness’ to the act of ‘murder’. For the statement ‘Murder is wrong’ to be true analytically ‘wrong’ and ‘murder’ should be perfect synonyms. Meaning that in every and any case, murder would be wrong. But we can think of instances that ‘wrong’ and ‘murder’ are not synonyms. The New York Times ran a survey and 42 percent of the respondents responded that they would kill baby Hitler. It might be unethical but is it, to some people, not wrong. There is a possibility that, in this case, murder is not wrong. Thus, proving that we are unable to ascribe the property of wrongness to murder in all cases. Ayer also rejects the idea that moral judgements are based on intuition and is innate, rejecting the ‘absolutist and intuitionist ideas.’ As these arguments rely on a baseless reasoning. Hence moral judgments when analyzed are unable to have any form of meaning or signal a fact, therefore, making him to conclude that moral judgments are
Synthetic statements are statements that can confirmed by observations and through experiences. However moral judgements like “Murder is Wrong” is unable to be clearly proven. Humans are unable to show ‘wrongness’ or test ‘wrongness’ empirically. Analytic statements are factually true based on the definition of the words in the statements itself. Hence by saying the statement ‘Murder is wrong’ we are ascribing the property of ‘wrongness’ to the act of ‘murder’. For the statement ‘Murder is wrong’ to be true analytically ‘wrong’ and ‘murder’ should be perfect synonyms. Meaning that in every and any case, murder would be wrong. But we can think of instances that ‘wrong’ and ‘murder’ are not synonyms. The New York Times ran a survey and 42 percent of the respondents responded that they would kill baby Hitler. It might be unethical but is it, to some people, not wrong. There is a possibility that, in this case, murder is not wrong. Thus, proving that we are unable to ascribe the property of wrongness to murder in all cases. Ayer also rejects the idea that moral judgements are based on intuition and is innate, rejecting the ‘absolutist and intuitionist ideas.’ As these arguments rely on a baseless reasoning. Hence moral judgments when analyzed are unable to have any form of meaning or signal a fact, therefore, making him to conclude that moral judgments are