This text provides a critical analysis of Annemarie Pieper's conception of ethics and moral language. The author initially explores Pieper’s alignment with the traditional understanding of ethics as a philosophical discipline focused on moral conduct, drawing on the works of Günther Patzig and Norbert Hoerster. However, the primary critique centers on Pieper’s distinction between the "language of morality" and the "language of ethics." Pieper defines the former as everyday discourse concerning critically assessed actions, while the latter is described as "reflective talk" about that moral language. The analysis identifies several fundamental flaws in this approach. Firstly, it challenges the ambiguous concept of "reflective talk," arguing that while reflection is articulated through language, it is not performed by the language itself. Most significantly, the author critiques Pieper’s reduction of the language of ethics to a mere meta-discourse on moral language. This interpretation erroneously separates ethical inquiry from the direct study of morality and ethics itself, potentially limiting the discipline to a purely linguistic exercise.