(harp music)

- Hello, and welcome to Philosophy Vibe,

the channel where we discuss and debate

different philosophical ideas.

Today were gonna be
carrying on with meta-ethics

and looking at a very interesting topic

known as emotivism.

Now, emotivism is a
non-cognitive approach to ethics.

John, would you like to explain
what non-cognitivism is?

- So non-cognitivism is
the branch of metaethics,

which argues that there is no truth

or falsity to moral language.

All moral statements are
not statements of fact.

They are not subject to cognition,

and therefore morality cannot be known.

- Correct.

Now emotivism is a
branch of non-cognitivism

developed by the philosopher A.J. Ayer.

Ayer argued that because moral
statements are not truth apt,

all moral statements
are just an expression

of a person's belief.

Moral statements are not
themselves true in any way.

Moral statements are,
in fact, meaningless.

All a moral statement
is, is a person's feeling

or emotion towards a certain situation.

So if someone says, "Stealing is wrong,"

all they're, in fact, saying is,

"I believe stealing is wrong."

However, "stealing is
wrong," as a statement

is neither true or false.

It is a meaningless statement.

Emotivism has also come to be known

as the Boo-Hurrah theory.

As moral statements are just
an expression of feelings,

saying "Stealing is wrong"
is just, in fact, saying,

"Boo, stealing."

Or if I say, "Giving to charity is good,"

it's the equivalent of me
saying, "Hurrah, charity."

- Wow, that's quite a
radical approach to ethics.

- Agreed but there are
some interesting points

to think about.

A.J. Ayer was part of a
wider philosophical thought

known as logical positivism.

Logical positivists
believe that a statement

is only truth apt if it is
either an analytic statement

or a synthetic statement.

This is known as the
verification principle.

An analytic statement is one that is true

by the meaning alone.

Like me saying, "A bachelor
is an unmarried man."

It's true by definition.

A synthetic statement
needs empirical evidence

to be proven right or wrong,

something that can be
tested by the five senses.

So if I say, "There is a tree
at the bottom of the road,"

you can go and empirically verify

if that statement is true or false.

- Yes, I see.
- Now Ayer argues that

moral statements are not analytic,

but nor are they synthetic.

We cannot prove moral
statements right or wrong

by using empirical evidence.

Someone may say, "Stealing is wrong,"

but how can we empirically test that?

Sure, we might be showing
the effects of stealing

on the victims and the
emotional damage it causes,

but this is not empirical
proof that stealing is wrong.

It might be proof that stealing
causes emotional damage

but not that it's wrong.
- Yes, I see.

- So then "stealing is
wrong" becomes neither

a true statement or a false
statement but a meaningless one

and just the expression of feeling

by the individual saying it.
- I still don't feel

truly satisfied in thinking
all morality is just feelings,

and there is no truth to any of it.

- Well, let's look at the
strengths of emotivism.

Firstly, it doesn't suffer any problems

from Moore's open question argument.

Do you remember this?
- Yes, this was the argument

that any attempt to
reduce moral statements

to natural statements is a mistake,

and morality cannot be defined

in natural terms.
- Correct.

Well, as we see emotivism does not try

to say moral statements
are analytically equivalent

to natural statements.

As they are just a person's feeling,

there is no truth or falsity attached.

- But Moore argued from a
cognitive position of ethics.

He claimed moral statements
could still be known

through our moral intuition.
- Yes, but according to Ayer,

a moral intuition does not meet
the verification principle,

so we have no basis to believe in it.

- Right, I see.
- Also emotivism better

explains why we have moral disagreements

that can never be resolved.

How can two people both
believe they are morally right,

and yet never agree on what that is?

It is because morally
right does not exist.

It is just two different beliefs
from two different people.

Emotivism also explains
how different cultures

and different time periods

can have different attitudes to morality.

Once upon a time, infanticide
was commonplace in Sparta,

where sick or deformed
babies were cast out to die.

Now, something like
this would never happen.

Arranged marriages are
commonplace in some cultures

but seem oppressive and wrong in others.

- I understand, but doesn't emotivism

just oversimplify morality

and reduce moral statements
to something trivial?

We know moral statements are important

in shaping one's world and one's culture.

If they are nothing more than
an expression of feeling,

then saying, "Murder is wrong"

holds the same value as saying
"I dislike tomato ketchup."

But we know moral statements are

so much more important than that.

- Good point.

Here, I would like to raise
C.L. Stevenson's emotivism.

Stevenson agreed that
moral statements hold

a lot more value than what
emotivism initially makes out.

Stevenson argued that
moral statements were,

in fact, deeply held beliefs.

So not just an expression of emotion

but a more important feeling.

It is because of this that when people

make moral statements, we're
expecting others to agree,

to adopt our deeply held beliefs

and act how we expect humanity to act.

Moral statements are meant to influence

the behavior of others,

and this is why morality is so important.

- I see.
- R.M. Hare also developed

his prescriptivism theory as a branch

off of non-cognitivism but
very much mirroring emotivism.

Hare argued that when one
makes a moral statement,

they are not just expressing their belief,

but they are prescribing or recommending

a course of action, a
way one should behave.

So unlike emotivism,
moral statements are not

just describing one's belief.

They are also prescribing
the universal way

a certain person wants you to act.

So when someone says, "Murder is wrong,"

what they're really saying
is, "I do not like murder,

"and I think no one should ever murder."

- Okay, emotivism in general
has some good points.

However, Ayer, Stevenson, and
Hare still ultimately believe

that moral statements are not
subject to truth or falsity.

If we follow this line of thought,

we still actually have no reason
to ever act in a moral way

as there is no morally right
or morally wrong behavior.

Genocide, murder, theft,

all of these are not
technically morally wrong.

Human beings, then, have
no true code to live by,

no true code to their behavior.

- Yes, I see.
- However, the biggest problem

with emotivism is the
verification principle itself.

- What do you mean?
- Well, think about it.

The verification principle states

that a statement can only be
truth apt or only have meaning

if it's an analytic statement
or a synthetic statement,

i.e., empirically verifiable.
- Yes.

- Well then, the statement itself,

"A statement can only have meaning if it's

"an analytic statement
or a synthetic statement"

is not an analytic or synthetic statement.

- Oh, I see.
- The statement then becomes

meaningless and the
verification principle fails

at its own criteria.

If emotivism is built on that principle

when the principle fails against itself,

then how can we follow the
emotivist line of thought?

- Yes, I understand.
- The verification principle

then becomes a meaningless statement,

and the reason why I
think emotivism fails.

- Well, that's a good point,

but that's all the time we have for now.

Thank you for watching.

We hope you enjoy the vibe.

What's everyone else's
thoughts on emotivism?

Do you think that morality
is just an expression

of emotion or is there
something more to it?

Leave your comments below.

Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe

and help grow this channel.

Thanks again until next time.