Emotivism? Flashcards
Emotivism?
Emotivism, associated primarily with A.J. Ayer and influenced by logical positivism, asserts that moral statements express emotions rather than factual claims. Ayer’s perspective contrasts with Charles L. Stevenson’s view, which is shaped by later Wittgensteinian ideas on language meaning. Earlier thinkers like David Hume and Bertrand Russell also suggested that moral judgments reflect personal emotions. Russell argued that moral assertions are justified based on emotional appeal, claiming that there is no objective evidence for moral truths. This view opposes G.E. Moore’s notion of intrinsic value as objective, emphasizing instead that morality is purely subjective.
Russell quote?
“when we assert that this or that has a “value,” we are given expression to our emotions, not to a fact that would still be true if our personal feelings were different.”
what did he adopt?
A.J. Ayer adopted the principle of non-verification from logical positivists, who focused on knowledge and language verifiable through either analytic (logic) or synthetic (empirical) means. Ethical propositions, according to Ayer and others like Hume and Russell, do not fit into these categories, as they arise from subjective feelings rather than objective qualities. Hume argued that reason cannot motivate actions, and ethical propositions cannot be grounded in anything beyond personal experience. Ayer maintained that while ethical propositions lack factual verification, they still hold value; however, ethical language serves a different purpose than factual communication and should not be subjected to traditional metaethical inquiry
neither verifiable nor analytic?
A.J. Ayer acknowledges that while ethical statements hold value, they are essentially expressions of emotions that lack scientific verification. He views moral propositions as demands meant to provoke responses rather than objective truths. Importantly, Ayer distinguishes emotivism from subjectivism; the latter asserts that values arise from personal or cultural attitudes. For Ayer, the emotions that form ethical propositions do not determine the moral value of the actions they describe. He rejects intuitionism not because it is subjective, as Russell argues, but because it fails to meet the criterion of verification, particularly when different intuitions conflict.
Ayer quotes?
“A mere appeal to intuition is worthless as a test of propositions validity.”
“What seems intuitively certain to one person may seem doubtful or even false to another.”
Ayer argues that ethical statements do not contribute factual content; for example, saying “You acted wrongly in stealing that” is equivalent to stating “You stole that money,” as it lacks additional evaluative substance. The extra words merely express disapproval.
Persuasiveness?
Ayer acknowledged that ethical statements can persuade and evoke feelings to stimulate action, but he argued that they lack objective validity and are “pseudo concepts” that cannot be analyzed. He believed ethical judgments are tied to social habits, better suited for sociology than philosophy. Since ethical arguments do not provide new information about actions, they are not independently verifiable. Ayer’s aim was not to trivialize morals but to show that moral theories inform us more about people’s judgments than about the actions themselves.
Boo Hurrah?
Emotivism, further developed by American philosopher Charles Stevenson, builds on Ayer’s ideas, which he referred to as the “hurrah boo theory.” Stevenson focused on how ethical propositions function, emphasizing that they should clarify disagreements, encourage action, and remain unverifiable. He preferred the term “interest theory” and noted that ethical language serves various purposes, such as persuasion and expressing feelings. Stevenson argued that defining “good” distorts its emotive element and that ethical debates reflect differences in attitudes rather than beliefs. He maintained that these debates are meaningful, as they aim to influence each other’s feelings, making emotivism a valuable framework for understanding moral disagreements.
Challenges?
Warnock critiques emotivism for being overly broad and lacking precision, failing to distinguish between ethical and non-ethical emotive language. She argues that ethical language isn’t always emotive; it can also be used to express indifference or to engage in rational, logical reasoning rather than emotional judgment.
Universality?
Emotivism fails to achieve universal agreement on what actions are considered wrong due to a lack of authoritative standards and clear differentiation in the intensity of approval or disapproval. Mackie argues that emotivism cannot distinguish between personal dislikes, such as disliking curry, and moral abominations like genocide. Moreover, historical examples show that minority emotions have often led to progress on issues like slavery, women’s rights, and LGBTQ+ rights, suggesting that ethical arguments can establish fundamental principles of right and wrong.
Basic moral principles?
A key criticism of emotivism is that it focuses solely on meta-ethics, reducing ethical statements to mere expressions of sentiment without factual content, leading to a lack of normative value. Ayer’s approach diminishes ethical statements to feelings, while Stevenson’s analysis fails to provide meaningful definitions or principles. This suggests that value judgments are irrational, preventing any rational agreement on ethics. Consequently, treating morality as merely emotional and devoid of rational justification is seen as reductive.
