emotivism Flashcards
Emotivism
Logical positivist- verification principle.
Something can be meaningful if only—
Tautology or empirically verified
This is about meaning
Logical positivist- verification principle.
Something can be meaningful if only—
Tautology or empirically verified
This is about meaning
statement of stealing is wrong
a non cognitive expression of emotion stealing is wrong -> stealing booooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
strength of emotivism
list
Doesn’t have to explain this good because they don’t believe that it is a mind independent thing just our emotions.
The motivation of emotion- because it appeals to our emotions, emotions cause us to act. Our moral judgment is based on our emotions.
When thinking of moral decision making, we want to value things love beauty etc if morality is discovered these things can’t happen if we are creating it we can include things we value in ethical decisions.
strength
account of goodness
They don’t have to struggle to give an account of goodness in the way that intuitionists have to. Moore for example struggles to say what goodness is he claims that it is a mysterious nonnatural property that we somehow intuit but this doesn’t sound convincing however by locating the meaning of goodness in emotion, emotivism gives a more straight forward account of goodness
strength motivations
Emotivism can explain how moral judgments motivate us our emotions encourage us to act in certain ways.
strength moral decision making
Emotivism strikes a chord with our intuition we tend to think emotions show have an important role in moral decisions making. Emotivism reflects an important aspect of human nature in acknowledging this. Making moral issues are emotive, such as abortion and euthanasia. Ignoring emotions when making decisions about such matters could lead to cold and calculated approaches. Bentham’s utility calculus and Kant’s categorical imperatives are arguably inadequate as they overlook emotions.
weakness of emotivism
list
counter-intuitive nothing distinct about moral language compared to ordinary language no experience of emotion in debate inconsistent mockery of ethical arguments
weakness- counter intuitive
Emotivism is counter-intuitive because it doesn’t allow for moral disagreement eg if one person sincerely expresses their emotion about abortions and another person expresses a different emotion about abortion then they are not contradicting each other.
However, we do think people can have moral disagreements so emotivism must be false.
Eg when I claim that abortion of a 20-week-old foetus is wrong I intend to contradict your claim that abortion of a 20-week old foetus is acceptable.
Against the emotivist, it can be argued that when we engage in the moral debate we do so using reasons not just feelings.
response
According to emotivist people can have rational disputes over matters of facts eg imagine we are debating the abortion of a 20 week old foetus we agree that harming an innocent human being is wrong. And if I can demonstrate that a foetus is a human being eg by showing that a feotus has complex responses and can survive outside the womb with special care has all the necessary body parts in the right places and that it can be harmed because it feels pain and then you may come to agree with me on this argument.
counter response
the disagreement is about the facts and not the values and when boiling down the values it’s just feelings again.
While particularly valued judgments may be a matter of rational debate ultimately on an emotivist account the criteria on which we base such judgment bio, down to the expression of feeling and in the final analysis any reason u may offer for why something is wrong can only reduce to some gut feeling for which no justification can be offered.
weakness- nothing distinct about it compared to ordinary language
There doesn’t seem to be anything distinctive about moral language under the emotivist account. Eg speeches bribes and advertisements could also all be attempts to influence peoples feelings.
weakness- not always emotional when debating
We are not always emotionally excited when we utter moral statements eg I may experience no emotions when saying abortion is wrong in a debate about it.
weakness- inconsistency
there is inconsistency in basing moral decisions making on emotion. I may feel one way about something at one time but feel differently about it at another time so I will act differently. So I am not committed to any particular moral view over time if I am simply basing my moral views on my emotions
weakness- makes a mockery of ethical arguments
Emotiviist makes a mockery of ethical arguments- reduce it all down to boo and yay.
Emotivism reduces all of the ethical discussions to mere boo yay shouting matches. Emotivist makes all of our ethical arguments absurd.
P1 if stealing is wrong then stealing that £10 note is wrong
P2 stealing is wrong
Therefore stealing that £10 note is wrong
In the emotivist language, this would be translated as
P1 if stealing boo then stealing that £10 note yuh
P2 stealing boo
Therefore stealing that £10 note yuk
