Emotivism

• AO1


  Morally anti-realist, right and wrong do not exist objectively, independent of the mind. Non-cognitivist, moral statements are not subject to truth or falsity, they are meaningless. There are no moral truths, morality cannot be empirically seen completely subject to you, your experience, feelings etc. Morality is not something to discover.
• Moral statements are not ones of fact, but are indicators of emotional states/personal opinion.
• Scholars - A.J Ayer


  Synoptic link: The verification principle suggests that statements are only meaningful if they are analytic (true by definition) or synthetic (verifiable by the senses). Moral statements fail this criterion so are meaningless factually.

  His weak VP says that we should only see statements as meaningless if we can see how we verify them in practice. Moral statements are not logical or synthetic but instead show emotional states/feelings that are therefore factually meaningless, there is nothing we can verify.
• Ayer Quote


  'The presence of an ethical symbol adds nothing [meaningful] to its factual content'

  • You aren't asserting a moral truth, just stating a moral opinion, it adds nothing. There is a difference between not liking what happened and your opinion. The only meaningful thing is what happened. All you do when you make a statement is add an opinion.
• Scholars - Hume


  Moral statements are feelings/sentiments rather than factual statements. Fact vs. Value, Is/Ought distinction. Is = factual claims about how you act, how things are. Ought = evaluative claims about how you feel.

  Fact: He killed someone

  Value: He is wrong for killing someone
• Strengths


  Promotes tolerance of different viewpoints, one religion does not have a monopoly over another. With emotivism, we can accept all religious stances as good, as they are just preferences. All opinions are right!

  Supported by the verification principle. It is right to see ethical statements as meaningless matters of personal opinion.

  Aligns with Humes is/ought distinction, based on his empiricle testing.
• Weaknesses


  It is absurd to reduce morality to emotions, it reduces all ethical conduct to personal opinion, what are the implications for the law? Huge.

  There is no factual basis for morality, There is no moral standard which could lead to the breaking down of society (with no basis for law).

  Undermines our attempts to make moral judgments so it's not useful for moral decision-making. If we can't establish a moral standard, we cannot make judgments, rules or agreements regarding rights/wrongs. NML & Utility show the need to establish moral standards, not just express emotions.