1D: Meta-ethics: Emotivisim

Question 1

What is emotivism?

Answer 1

Rests on the idea that objective moral laws do not exist. Ethical statements are seen as expressions of personal approval (hurrah) or disapproval (boo), explains why people disagree about morality

Question 2

How is emotivism similar to naturalism?

Answer 2

Both agree on importance of empirical evidence for verifying propositions (BUT emotivism doesn’t think there are moral propositions)

Question 3

How is emotivism different to naturalism?

Answer 3

• Non cognitivist
• For emotivism; moral terms are expressions of personal approval inside of us rather than expressions found in the natural world

Question 4

How is emotivism similar to intuitionism?

Answer 4

Agree that we cannot demonstrate the truth or falsity of a moral statement

Question 5

How is emotivism different from intuitionism?

Answer 5

• Non cognitivist
• Moral anti-realist
• Emotivism says there is no point in moral debate: could be a way of exercising and maturing the intuitive mind

Question 6

What are the two types of statements that logical positivists argue are factually meaningful?

Answer 6

Analytic and synthetic

Question 7

Objective moral laws do not exist

Answer 7

• Moral statements cannot express propositions about the world and properties are not self defining, so factually meaningless
• All moral statements are relative and subjective
• No cognitive properties

Question 8

Non cognitivist

Answer 8

• An ethical statement neither makes any truth claims about the world, nor says anything that anything can be demonstrated as true/false in any real sense
• A form of anti realism

Question 9

Moral terms express personal emotional attitudes, not propositions

Answer 9

• Emotivism claims an ethical statement only professes a feeling on the part of the speaker and nothing more
• ‘Stealing is wrong’ only expresses my feelings about stealing: it doesn’t make any truth claims about stealing. The claim cannot be evidenced
• If I felt differently about stealing then my claim would be different, a factual claim would remain the same

Question 10

Ethical terms are just expressions of personal approval/disapproval

Answer 10

• A moral claim (eg ‘stealing is wrong’) is only an emotional expression and not even a statement of belief
• Giving reasons to support my statement is just giving examples of my feelings, not logical support. I am just announcing how I feel
• To say ‘euthanasia is good’ is no more meaningful than me saying ‘Euthanasia, hurrah!’
• Similarly, to condemn stealing as wrong is just saying ‘Stealing, boo!’

Question 11

How does Stephenson explain moral disagreements by differentiating beliefs? (non moral)

Answer 11

• Belief propositions concern facts that are believed to be true
• Conflicting belief statements cannot simultaneously be true

Question 12

How does Stephenson explain moral disagreements by differentiating attitudes? (moral)

Answer 12

• Attitudes concern desires or feelings: psychological state
• Conflicting attitudes concern what individuals favour/prefer

Question 13

Ayer: ethical statements are neither verifiable nor analytic

Answer 13

• He agreed with the Vienna Circle that moral statements are neither analytic or synthetic
• A statement eg ‘stealing is wrong’ contains no more information than saying ‘Stealing!!!’: it isn’t possible to analyse ethical aspects of the statement
• Idea of rightness/wrongness is a pseduoconcept: no difference than saying ‘stealing’ with a look of horror

Question 14

Ayer: ethical statements are expressed to be persuasive

Answer 14

• Intend to cause feelings in others and stimulate others into action
• Appear like commands: stronger than the command

Question 15

Ayer: emotivism is not subjectivism

Answer 15

• Subjectivism: ethical statements are expressions of emotion. Propositions of a persons emotional state. Verifiable.
• Emotivism: ethical statements are expressions of emotion. Emotional utterances. No facts about the self

Question 16

What is Hume’s fork?

Answer 16

Belief that language is either analytic or synthetic: statements about the objection world must either be true by definition (analytic) or verifiable by sense experience (synthetic)

Question 17

Why did Hume argue moral statements are neither analytic or synthetic?

Answer 17

He said moral statements are an expression of emotion or sentiment

Question 18

What are moral statements to emotivists?

Answer 18

They express our feelings with emotive force

Question 19

How did Ayer say we can verify statements about reality?

Answer 19

Using the verification principle: “His leg is bleeding” can be verified by looking at the persons leg

Question 20

How did Ayer build on the open question argument?

Answer 20

He stated that “it is not self-contradictory to say some pleasant things are not good, or that some bad things are desired”. Goodness cannot be equated to pleasure

Question 21

What are Ayer’s three different approaches to ethical language?

Answer 21

1. Utilitarians who argue ‘good’ is equivalent to ‘pleasurable’
2. Subjectivists who see ‘good’ as equivalent to a ‘feeling of approval’
3. Intuitionists, because “unless it is possible to provide some criterion by which one may decide between conflicting intuitions, a mere appeal to intuition is worthless as a test of a propositions validity), and if we say we “just know”, this is only right of psychological interest

Question 22

What is a pseudo-concept?

Answer 22

Statements that appear to have factual content but only contain metaphysical content

Question 23

According to Ayer, what three functions do ethical statements serve?

Answer 23

1. Expressing or evincing feelings
2. Arousing feelings
3. Stimulate action

Question 24

Why is the theory referred to as ‘Boo/Hurrah’?

Answer 24

Because ethical statements are merely exclamations and are not propositional

Question 25

Why does Ayer say that arguments about the validity of ethical statements are pointless?

Answer 25

Because we can argue about the faces of a case and the consistency of application of a principle, but not the validity of the principle itself

Question 26

Why is Ayer a relativist and non-naturalist?

Answer 26

• Relativist: he imputes moral values to social/cultural conditioning
• Non-naturalist: he argues there are no moral facts to appeal to, just descriptions of the situation

Question 27

Challenge; No basic moral principles can be established

Answer 27

• It is too reductionist and gives no basis to establish moral principles
• Says debating whether or not to save a life is meaningless as it is the same as saying ‘save lives!’
• CR: emotivism doesn’t seek to be normative, so it doesn’t have to be practical to be correct

Question 28

Challenge: Ethical debate becomes a pointless activity

Answer 28

• It is reduced to nothing more than a shouting match; the winner being who can shout the loudest/make the most expressive face
• Emotivism assumes there is nothing that can be proved/disproved in anything that is said in a moral debate
• CR: Stevenson’s version argues that moral statements are based on fundamental beliefs people have and include a persuasive element to influence others

Question 29

Challenge: There is no universal agreement that some actions are wrong

Answer 29

• If emotivism is correct, all normative theories are mistaken and there can be no human rights/acts that are demonstrably wrong: so reductionist that it is useless for ordinary life
• Has no practical use: rape and murder are reduced to something I have unpleasant feelings about but cannot be said to be objectively wrong
• CR: there is universally knowable moral truth but some minds are too immature to recognise it