Metaethical Emotivism

Question 1

The Logical Positivists

TLP

Answer 1

Argue that the only statements that are meaningful are those that can be shown to be true or false.

Question 2

Analytic statements

Answer 2

These are statements that are true by definition, like all triangles have three sides

Question 3

Synthetic statements

Answer 3

These are statements that we can check, like sea walter is salty

Question 4

Meaningless statements

Answer 4

For Logical Positivists all other statements, which can’t be proved true or false, are meaningless. Eg; like murder is wrong

Question 5

Ayer himself

Answer 5

Non natrualist
Non cognitivist

Question 6

Ayer’s argument

Answer 6

P: Moore sys Good couldn’t be defined through the open question argument, and was therefore non-natural.

P: If good is defined purely by our intuition then we can’t check whether something’s good.

C: Only statements that can be checked are meaningful, then good must be meaningless

Question 7

So when we are talking about morality we are actually doing two things

Answer 7

1. We are actually discussing facts, you might argue about how many civilians have been killed in Gaza. This is a factual, not a moral argument.
2. If we are not arguing over facts then we are just expressing our personal preference.

Question 8

boo-hooray theory

Answer 8

Abortion is right is the same as abortion is good and vice versa

Question 9

Emotivism at it’s core

Answer 9

It is not saying that what you think about a moral issue is true for you.

It is saying that nothing we believe about morality can be true or false. we can only give our attitudes.

Question 10

It’s based on a paradox

Criticism of emotivism

Answer 10

P: Logical Positivism deems the sentance as not analytic or synthetic.
P: We can’t check the sentence if its true or false
C: the sentance is therefore meaningless.

So Logical Positivism is destroyed by its own ideas. This is called a paradox.

Basis of ‘a sentence is only meaningful if you can check whether it’s true or false’.

Question 11

We can convince others

Criticism of emotivism

Answer 11

P: we can convince people of different moral outcomes
P: moral arguments are not just boo-hooray
P: peoples minds change
C: theres more to moral arguments then just boo hooray

Question 12

Emotivism is reductive

Criticism of emotivism

Answer 12

P: when making a moral statement we use more then just our oppinon

P: When I say that the holocaust was wrong, I’m saying more than just ‘holocaust-boo’.

P: I’m saying it was wrong then, it would be wrong now

C: Emotivism reduces moral statements to too little, and because of this misses the point.

C2 Therefore over simplifying things so much that you miss the point is called reductivism