1D: Meta-ethics: Emotivisim Flashcards
What is emotivism?
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
How is emotivism similar to naturalism?
Both agree on importance of empirical evidence for verifying propositions (BUT emotivism doesn’t think there are moral propositions)
How is emotivism different to naturalism?
- Non cognitivist
- For emotivism; moral terms are expressions of personal approval inside of us rather than expressions found in the natural world
How is emotivism similar to intuitionism?
Agree that we cannot demonstrate the truth or falsity of a moral statement
How is emotivism different from intuitionism?
- 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
What are the two types of statements that logical positivists argue are factually meaningful?
Analytic and synthetic
Objective moral laws do not exist
- 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
Non cognitivist
- 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
Moral terms express personal emotional attitudes, not propositions
- 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
Ethical terms are just expressions of personal approval/disapproval
- 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!’
How does Stephenson explain moral disagreements by differentiating beliefs? (non moral)
- Belief propositions concern facts that are believed to be true
- Conflicting belief statements cannot simultaneously be true
How does Stephenson explain moral disagreements by differentiating attitudes? (moral)
- Attitudes concern desires or feelings: psychological state
- Conflicting attitudes concern what individuals favour/prefer
Ayer: ethical statements are neither verifiable nor analytic
- 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
Ayer: ethical statements are expressed to be persuasive
- Intend to cause feelings in others and stimulate others into action
- Appear like commands: stronger than the command
Ayer: emotivism is not subjectivism
- 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
What is Hume’s fork?
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)
Why did Hume argue moral statements are neither analytic or synthetic?
He said moral statements are an expression of emotion or sentiment
What are moral statements to emotivists?
They express our feelings with emotive force
How did Ayer say we can verify statements about reality?
Using the verification principle: “His leg is bleeding” can be verified by looking at the persons leg
How did Ayer build on the open question argument?
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
What are Ayer’s three different approaches to ethical language?
- Utilitarians who argue ‘good’ is equivalent to ‘pleasurable’
- Subjectivists who see ‘good’ as equivalent to a ‘feeling of approval’
- 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
What is a pseudo-concept?
Statements that appear to have factual content but only contain metaphysical content
According to Ayer, what three functions do ethical statements serve?
- Expressing or evincing feelings
- Arousing feelings
- Stimulate action
Why is the theory referred to as ‘Boo/Hurrah’?
Because ethical statements are merely exclamations and are not propositional
Why does Ayer say that arguments about the validity of ethical statements are pointless?
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
Why is Ayer a relativist and non-naturalist?
- 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
Challenge; No basic moral principles can be established
- 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
Challenge: Ethical debate becomes a pointless activity
- 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
Challenge: There is no universal agreement that some actions are wrong
- 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
