Emotivism Flashcards
.
0
What did Ayer argue about emotivism
- that ethical language really express our feelings about something or somebody we do/ do not like
- we simply express our approval or disapproval so that to say “ lying is wrong” is a bit like saying boo to lying
- Ayer claimed in saying a certain type of action is right or wrong to someonne it isnt a a factual statment it is expressing certain moral centiments
what is emotivism/
the view that morals can be undertsood purley as emotional responses
- when someone says something is “wrong” or “good,” according to emotivism, they’re not stating a fact about the world but are instead expressing their feelings about it. For example, when someone says, “Stealing is wrong,” they are not claiming that stealing objectively is wrong, but are rather expressing disapproval or a negative emotional reaction to stealing.
- For Ayer, moral judgments (such as “Stealing is wrong”) are not cognitive claims, meaning they don’t state facts that can be true or false in the traditional sense. Instead, they are expressions of emotions or attitudes. When someone says, “Stealing is wrong,” Ayer argues that what they are actually doing is expressing their disapproval or emotional response to stealing.
what does ayer clarify aboyt emotivism
- that nto all emotive statemtns are equal
- moral statnents arose three diffrent strregths of command
- so implying a duty is the strongest form of a statemtn
- saying tjat one ought to do something is less storng
- ## finnaly merely stating that something is good or bad is very weak
what is stevensons emotivism
-0 steveson claimed that there are such things as real disagreemnets in attuides rather that just differing emotions.
- so he said that if someone says that capital punishment is wrong they have an attuide which is shaped by their prior beliefs.
- disagrements are not just diffrent emotions but also issues of diffrent underlying convictions (belifs)
- where ayer sees moral disagreements as conficlist of feelinngs stevenson gives m0ore meaning
- stevson belives that ist not just emotions that undelie morla issues but also isseues of diffrent belioefs
- for expamle ayer would say that murder is wrong is just opinion of emotions but stevenson would say that its yes emotions but also beliefs that we have as society and people
- attuides and beloefs effect each other and both are involved in moral debate and not just emotions
what was ayers emotivism influenced by
Ayer’s version of emotivism was influenced by logical positivism, which argued that only statements that are either empirically verifiable or analytically true have meaning. Since moral statements don’t meet this criterion, they are meaningless in terms of providing knowledge about the world.
what is a cognitive claim
cognitive claim is a statement or assertion that can be evaluated as true or false based on evidence, facts, or reasoning. Essentially, a cognitive claim is something that provides information about the world, and its truth or falsity can be determined through empirical verification or logical analysis.
For example:
“The Earth orbits the Sun” is a cognitive claim because it can be verified as true by scientific observation and evidence.
“Water boils at 100°C at sea level” is another cognitive claim because it can be tested and proven to be true.
In contrast, non-cognitive claims (like moral judgments according to emotivism) don’t have a truth value in the same way. They aren’t meant to describe the world in factual terms, but instead express emotions, preferences, or attitudes.
So, when you hear something described as a “cognitive claim,” think of it as a statement that is meant to convey factual information that can be verified or refuted.
exmaple in empotivism
when seomone says murder is wrong it is purley an opinion on how we have been bought up in society and not and actual fact and it isnt meaning ful until it cane be verified
strengths of emotivsim
- ayers is based on the observation of behaviour rather than god or a timeless form
- stevenson is able to explain the complex meaning of ethical terms and gives someone hope for resolving ethical disputes because he emphasises underlying beliefs and definitions
weakness of emotivism
- it removes reason from morla judgemnets -: in our morlaity we appeal to reason as in any other aspect - it doesnt allow us to think clearly - we shpuld base soemthing on emotions as we arent always in the right headspace
- in the basis of a bad situation it seems wrong to say something is just emotion - genocide shopuld be classed as intrinsically wrong and not just a opinion based on emotion
- there is no universal agreemnets that some actions are wrong - if emotivism is correct there can be no human rightd or acts are wrong - emotivism has no practical use
- ethical debate becomes pointless - ethucal deabte comes down to nothing because unser emotivism all we are doing is shouting our feelings into a abyss
- no basic morla principles can be established
what type of thepry is emotivism
non cognitive - ethical statments make no truths about the world and also says that nothing can be demonstrated as true or false in any real sense
how does emotivism explain how morla terms express person emotions attuides and not propositions
- emotivism claims that an ethical statment only professes a feeling on the part of the speaer who is expressing the moral statments and nothing more
- it doest make any truth about any claim made
- the claim cannot be verified
- an actual factual claim that has evidence would remain the same wether i have a diffrnet opinion on it or not
how is morla statment expressed to be persuasive
- if someone says that homosexulity is worng there aim is to persuade you into thinking the same way
- the reaction from othes is at best evidence on how strongley the sensations are felt
