Here's an interesting question I just thought up: what are ethics absent language? If we say that murder is wrong even when that proposition cannot be expressed--due perhaps to murder causing harm--aren't we guilty of equivocation? To consider what is wrong to be that which causes harm is to assume an ethical stance, but what in nature suggests we should take that stance?

It would also seem that if the two terms ('wrong' and 'harmful') indicate the same thing, then we could eliminate our use of the term 'wrong' altogether, as it simply suggests 'causing harm'. Now if we're just pointing out that murder causes harm, without also suggesting that it is wrong, are we making an ethical statement? Which brings us back to the question of what ethics are absent language.


Edit: I suddenly understand what G.E. Moore meant when he said we can't reduce talk of 'good' to talk of something else. Terms like 'wrong' or 'good' suggest personal feelings concerning something, and don't simply convey something like 'helpful', 'harmful', or whatnot.