emotivism

• key points emotivsim


  ethical language is non-cognitive and subjective

  Ayer

  • there is no ethical knowledge because ethical judgments are not statements that can be true
• Humes' emotivist approach 


  Hume criticises Ethical naturalism

  • moral claims are derived from sentiment not reason
  • morals are about the sentiment of the observer and excite passions and produce or prevent actions
  • moral judgements are like judgments about heat, sound or colour - come from perceptions and are not facts in themselves
  • the rules of morality are not a result of applying our reason
• Ayer - emotivism 


  boo/hurrah theory 

  • Saying stealing is wrong is simply saying boo to stealing - emotions of disapproval 
  • Doesn’t reference actual facts but only the emotions we feel toward the statements 
  • Verification principle: statements are only meaningful if they can be tested empirically 
  • Ethical statements therefore cannot be meaningful - cant be empirically tested
  • ethical statements are about emotion
  • Non-cognitive - emotions - not objective facts 
• Stevenson emotivism


  developed Ayer's boo/hurrah theory - prescriptivism

  • when moral statements are made/ when we express our views we are also trying to persuade others to have the same emotional response
  • moral disagreements reflect a disagreement in attitudes and emotions

  
  

  when saying 'stealing is wrong' we mean 'I dislike stealing and I think you should dislike it too'
• EVAL emotivism 


  S

  • allows all opinions to be valid - all with an emotional basis - egalitarian
  • culturally aware - eg arranged marriage could be good or bad depending on the stance of different cultures
  • effectively resolves the argument as to why moral disputes can never be resolved
• EVAL emotivism 


  W

  • challenges the foundations of morality - no sense of morality beyond our emotions
  • leads to no conclusion - ethical statements are meaningless and morality is subjective - against Kant's notion of universal morality
  • trivialises morality - right and wrong go beyond mere emotion - eg genocide is fundamentally wrong
  • if we accept emotivism then there is no compelling reason to act morally because it is to do with what we feel like/ prefer - if an ambulance driver does not have a preference to respond to an emergency call then there is no 'bigger' reason why they should
• EVAL emotivism 


  MacIntyre

  • the relevance/ importance of moral utterances is what makes them a guide to our actions and gives them meaning - not whether or not they are factual
  • eg to say your house is on fire is different in when you are in your house compared to being on holiday - different call of action - relevance is what gives it meaning even though its the same statement
  • Stevenson creates a picture of an unpleasant world where people try to force their beliefs onto others - prescriptivism
  • emotivism is opaque - can't distinguish between morality and feelings about others things
• Eval emotivism 


  • suggests that there are no moral absolutes to guide society

  
  

  James Rachel - Ayer trivialises right and wrong - compares stubbing your toe to a moral statement

  
  

  Mel Thompson - "You cannot reduce morality to a set of cheers and boos" - trivialising - reductionist

  
  

  MacIntyre - emotivism wrongly places child carers and paedophiles as equals
• Eval prescriptivism 


  S

  • logical and realistic - when we make moral judgements we often prescribe courses of action
  • solves the emotivist issue of moral language being meaningless - they can be prescribed actions

  W

  • Mackie - if prescriptivism is culturally aware then morality cannot be universal
  • there is no need to follow moral rules if they are simply based on what people want you to do