# data[].attributes.body
Ethical language, in spite of its issues, is meaningful. This is clearly shown through theories of F.H. Bradley's Naturalism and G.E. Moore's Intuitionism, which show the cognitivist validity of ethical language. They successfully show that language can be absolute and meaningful. Even the theory of emotivism, which is non-cognitivist, doesn't disprove the meaning of ethical language, rather it shows that language is meaningful but on an individual level that is personal. Although it is not agreed whether ethical language is absolute or relativistic, we can certainly agree that it is meaningful as it successfully allows humans to communicate and decide ethical codes.

# data[].attributes.headline
G.E Moore argued against Ethical Naturalism, as he believed thatdefining concepts such as ‘good’ are impossible and any attempt to define ‘good’ is tocommit The Naturalistic or Is/Ought Fallacy, the fallacy that a moral prescription, an‘ought’, can be derived from a natural property, an ‘is’. 

# data[].attributes.subject
G.E Moore argued against Ethical Naturalism, as he believed thatdefining concepts such as ‘good’ are impossible and any attempt to define ‘good’ is tocommit The Naturalistic or Is/Ought Fallacy, the fallacy that a moral prescription, an‘ought’, can be derived from a natural property, an ‘is’. 

# data[].attributes.body
ethical language is used in expressions of feelings - the words 'good' 'bad' is seen as having no actual existence

# data[].attributes.body
instead of saying something is immoral we are actually saying that we don't like the idea - eg murder is wrong

# data[].attributes.body
relativistic - no fixed moral truth

# data[].attributes.body
verification principle - statement is only true if it is true or false

# data[].attributes.body
analytic statements and synthetic statements

# data[].attributes.body
ethical language objective and based on a common sense approach - we just know

# data[].attributes.body
'boo' 'hurrah' - expressions of approval/disapproval

# data[].attributes.body
'Good id good' - it cannot be reduced further. Similarly, yellow is just yellow.

# data[].attributes.body
Hume argued that moral good or evil cannot be distinguished using reason as morals are not absolute fact. Morals are explained by the feeling of the observer.

# data[].attributes.body
Emotivism shows that ethical language has personal and persuasive meaning

# data[].attributes.body
Ethical Language determined from our emotional response determines the moral course of action we ought to take as individuals - Boo/Hurrah A.J. Ayer

# data[].attributes.body
Undermined if emotivism is viewed as overly reductionist (R.M. Hare - emotivism is too simple to work with complex human reasoning).
If morality under emotivism is meaningless then it follows that the ethical language that surrounds those morals also becomes redundant

# data[].attributes.body
Even if morals determined by emotivism were verifiably false, this does not mean that the ethical statements become meaningless.
C.L. Stevenson - the moral statements that stem from emotional responses are used both descriptively and dynamically (persuading others to accept that conclusion). Ethical language therefore continues to have meaning and purpose in this persuasion