Emotivism Flashcards
Whose form of emotivism does not depend on the verification principle?
Stevenson
What does Stevenson claim about meaning?
Words can have emotive meaning, which is distinct from descriptive.
What defines emotive meaning?
It’s function - which is influential. Emotive claims function as quasi-imperatives.
What are two strengths of emotivism?
The is/ought fallacy
The OQA
List the problems with emotivism
Oversimplifies disagreement, Verification principle unverifiable, No limits placed on what can be valued, Moral Progress, Analogy with secondary properties, Types of judgement
How does emotivism oversimplify disagreement?
When we argue, we don’t just express feelings - we reason with people. This is the difference between propaganda, advertising and ethics - ethics is rational.
What does James Rachels claim about moral disagreement?
Rachels criticises Ayer for drawing a parallel between the ouch response of stubbing your toe, and moral disapproval of murder. Mere preferences don’t need to be justified; but ethical stances must be rational.
How does Ayer respond to the problem of disagreement?
Ethical discussion about the facts. Debates rational in this regard, and moral attitudes can change as a result of facts. But the attitudes themselves are irrational; once all facts agreed upon, nothing left to say…
Explain the problem with the verification principle.
Ayer’s verification principle is not verifiable. The claim that a statement is meaningful only if it is analytically or empirically verifiable is not, itself, verifiable. So it cannot be a true statement.
Response to the problem with the verification principle.
Stevenson’s emotivism.
Outline the Problem of valuing whatever you like…
Emotivism identify moral statements in terms of form, not content. But if value judgements depend entirely on attitudes/preferences, anything could be a value… But this can become absurd -surely there are some limits concerning what can and cannot be considered a value.
How does Foot relate to the problem of valuing anything?!?
Foot would argue that emotivists are mistaken - ethics is constrained by certain natural facts about human beings. Morality can’t just be a case of attitude and feeling because ‘good’ has a definition which is restricted.
How can an emotivist respond to the problem of valuing anything?
Emotivists can reply that there is a factual, though not logical, restriction on morality.
The will is governed by nature - we have certain basic needs, desires… So a common human nature underlies all feelings.
Explain the issue of moral progress
Moral values have changed over time. Cognitivists claim that they have progressed. How can no cognitivists interpret the change?
How can emotivists reply to moral progress?
Emotivists can claim that moral views improve if they become more rational.
First, people can come to know certain facts that they did not know before - in the case of the abolition of slavery, people came to recognise certain facts about slaves - that they were human, for instance.
Second - our views can become more consistent. Peter Singer - vegetarianism.
