WEBVTT 00:00:00.139 --> 00:00:02.556 (harp music) 00:00:06.110 --> 00:00:08.070 - Hello, and welcome to Philosophy Vibe, 00:00:08.070 --> 00:00:09.560 the channel where we discuss and debate 00:00:09.560 --> 00:00:11.450 different philosophical ideas. 00:00:11.450 --> 00:00:13.670 Today were gonna be carrying on with meta-ethics 00:00:13.670 --> 00:00:15.490 and looking at a very interesting topic 00:00:15.490 --> 00:00:17.920 known as emotivism. 00:00:17.920 --> 00:00:21.210 Now, emotivism is a non-cognitive approach to ethics. 00:00:21.210 --> 00:00:24.140 John, would you like to explain what non-cognitivism is? 00:00:24.140 --> 00:00:27.700 - So non-cognitivism is the branch of metaethics, 00:00:27.700 --> 00:00:29.500 which argues that there is no truth 00:00:29.500 --> 00:00:32.170 or falsity to moral language. 00:00:32.170 --> 00:00:35.270 All moral statements are not statements of fact. 00:00:35.270 --> 00:00:37.290 They are not subject to cognition, 00:00:37.290 --> 00:00:39.600 and therefore morality cannot be known. 00:00:39.600 --> 00:00:40.810 - Correct. 00:00:40.810 --> 00:00:43.900 Now emotivism is a branch of non-cognitivism 00:00:43.900 --> 00:00:46.890 developed by the philosopher A.J. Ayer. 00:00:46.890 --> 00:00:50.060 Ayer argued that because moral statements are not truth apt, 00:00:50.060 --> 00:00:52.270 all moral statements are just an expression 00:00:52.270 --> 00:00:53.930 of a person's belief. 00:00:53.930 --> 00:00:57.160 Moral statements are not themselves true in any way. 00:00:57.160 --> 00:00:59.900 Moral statements are, in fact, meaningless. 00:00:59.900 --> 00:01:02.500 All a moral statement is, is a person's feeling 00:01:02.500 --> 00:01:05.370 or emotion towards a certain situation. 00:01:05.370 --> 00:01:07.530 So if someone says, "Stealing is wrong," 00:01:07.530 --> 00:01:08.817 all they're, in fact, saying is, 00:01:08.817 --> 00:01:11.180 "I believe stealing is wrong." 00:01:11.180 --> 00:01:13.920 However, "stealing is wrong," as a statement 00:01:13.920 --> 00:01:15.760 is neither true or false. 00:01:15.760 --> 00:01:17.986 It is a meaningless statement. 00:01:17.986 --> 00:01:19.990 Emotivism has also come to be known 00:01:19.990 --> 00:01:21.950 as the Boo-Hurrah theory. 00:01:21.950 --> 00:01:24.580 As moral statements are just an expression of feelings, 00:01:24.580 --> 00:01:27.387 saying "Stealing is wrong" is just, in fact, saying, 00:01:27.387 --> 00:01:28.870 "Boo, stealing." 00:01:28.870 --> 00:01:30.970 Or if I say, "Giving to charity is good," 00:01:30.970 --> 00:01:33.960 it's the equivalent of me saying, "Hurrah, charity." 00:01:33.960 --> 00:01:37.140 - Wow, that's quite a radical approach to ethics. 00:01:37.140 --> 00:01:39.080 - Agreed but there are some interesting points 00:01:39.080 --> 00:01:40.290 to think about. 00:01:40.290 --> 00:01:43.110 A.J. Ayer was part of a wider philosophical thought 00:01:43.110 --> 00:01:45.530 known as logical positivism. 00:01:45.530 --> 00:01:47.950 Logical positivists believe that a statement 00:01:47.950 --> 00:01:51.220 is only truth apt if it is either an analytic statement 00:01:51.220 --> 00:01:53.150 or a synthetic statement. 00:01:53.150 --> 00:01:56.150 This is known as the verification principle. 00:01:56.150 --> 00:01:58.470 An analytic statement is one that is true 00:01:58.470 --> 00:02:00.050 by the meaning alone. 00:02:00.050 --> 00:02:02.920 Like me saying, "A bachelor is an unmarried man." 00:02:02.920 --> 00:02:05.160 It's true by definition. 00:02:05.160 --> 00:02:08.040 A synthetic statement needs empirical evidence 00:02:08.040 --> 00:02:09.890 to be proven right or wrong, 00:02:09.890 --> 00:02:12.910 something that can be tested by the five senses. 00:02:12.910 --> 00:02:15.560 So if I say, "There is a tree at the bottom of the road," 00:02:15.560 --> 00:02:17.670 you can go and empirically verify 00:02:17.670 --> 00:02:19.640 if that statement is true or false. 00:02:19.640 --> 00:02:21.910 - Yes, I see. - Now Ayer argues that 00:02:21.910 --> 00:02:23.830 moral statements are not analytic, 00:02:23.830 --> 00:02:26.050 but nor are they synthetic. 00:02:26.050 --> 00:02:28.430 We cannot prove moral statements right or wrong 00:02:28.430 --> 00:02:30.690 by using empirical evidence. 00:02:30.690 --> 00:02:32.320 Someone may say, "Stealing is wrong," 00:02:32.320 --> 00:02:34.580 but how can we empirically test that? 00:02:34.580 --> 00:02:36.630 Sure, we might be showing the effects of stealing 00:02:36.630 --> 00:02:39.350 on the victims and the emotional damage it causes, 00:02:39.350 --> 00:02:42.350 but this is not empirical proof that stealing is wrong. 00:02:42.350 --> 00:02:44.900 It might be proof that stealing causes emotional damage 00:02:44.900 --> 00:02:47.453 but not that it's wrong. - Yes, I see. 00:02:48.970 --> 00:02:51.270 - So then "stealing is wrong" becomes neither 00:02:51.270 --> 00:02:54.650 a true statement or a false statement but a meaningless one 00:02:54.650 --> 00:02:56.300 and just the expression of feeling 00:02:56.300 --> 00:02:58.760 by the individual saying it. - I still don't feel 00:02:58.760 --> 00:03:02.160 truly satisfied in thinking all morality is just feelings, 00:03:02.160 --> 00:03:03.960 and there is no truth to any of it. 00:03:03.960 --> 00:03:06.300 - Well, let's look at the strengths of emotivism. 00:03:06.300 --> 00:03:08.250 Firstly, it doesn't suffer any problems 00:03:08.250 --> 00:03:10.360 from Moore's open question argument. 00:03:10.360 --> 00:03:13.070 Do you remember this? - Yes, this was the argument 00:03:13.070 --> 00:03:15.100 that any attempt to reduce moral statements 00:03:15.100 --> 00:03:17.370 to natural statements is a mistake, 00:03:17.370 --> 00:03:19.080 and morality cannot be defined 00:03:19.080 --> 00:03:21.330 in natural terms. - Correct. 00:03:21.330 --> 00:03:23.330 Well, as we see emotivism does not try 00:03:23.330 --> 00:03:25.800 to say moral statements are analytically equivalent 00:03:25.800 --> 00:03:27.160 to natural statements. 00:03:27.160 --> 00:03:28.720 As they are just a person's feeling, 00:03:28.720 --> 00:03:30.930 there is no truth or falsity attached. 00:03:30.930 --> 00:03:33.840 - But Moore argued from a cognitive position of ethics. 00:03:33.840 --> 00:03:36.280 He claimed moral statements could still be known 00:03:36.280 --> 00:03:39.590 through our moral intuition. - Yes, but according to Ayer, 00:03:39.590 --> 00:03:43.160 a moral intuition does not meet the verification principle, 00:03:43.160 --> 00:03:45.460 so we have no basis to believe in it. 00:03:45.460 --> 00:03:48.360 - Right, I see. - Also emotivism better 00:03:48.360 --> 00:03:50.610 explains why we have moral disagreements 00:03:50.610 --> 00:03:52.570 that can never be resolved. 00:03:52.570 --> 00:03:55.140 How can two people both believe they are morally right, 00:03:55.140 --> 00:03:57.540 and yet never agree on what that is? 00:03:57.540 --> 00:03:59.750 It is because morally right does not exist. 00:03:59.750 --> 00:04:03.290 It is just two different beliefs from two different people. 00:04:03.290 --> 00:04:06.090 Emotivism also explains how different cultures 00:04:06.090 --> 00:04:07.970 and different time periods 00:04:07.970 --> 00:04:10.680 can have different attitudes to morality. 00:04:10.680 --> 00:04:14.510 Once upon a time, infanticide was commonplace in Sparta, 00:04:14.510 --> 00:04:17.610 where sick or deformed babies were cast out to die. 00:04:17.610 --> 00:04:20.090 Now, something like this would never happen. 00:04:20.090 --> 00:04:23.230 Arranged marriages are commonplace in some cultures 00:04:23.230 --> 00:04:25.370 but seem oppressive and wrong in others. 00:04:25.370 --> 00:04:27.530 - I understand, but doesn't emotivism 00:04:27.530 --> 00:04:29.300 just oversimplify morality 00:04:29.300 --> 00:04:32.300 and reduce moral statements to something trivial? 00:04:32.300 --> 00:04:34.180 We know moral statements are important 00:04:34.180 --> 00:04:36.870 in shaping one's world and one's culture. 00:04:36.870 --> 00:04:39.520 If they are nothing more than an expression of feeling, 00:04:39.520 --> 00:04:41.310 then saying, "Murder is wrong" 00:04:41.310 --> 00:04:45.240 holds the same value as saying "I dislike tomato ketchup." 00:04:45.240 --> 00:04:46.900 But we know moral statements are 00:04:46.900 --> 00:04:48.920 so much more important than that. 00:04:48.920 --> 00:04:49.960 - Good point. 00:04:49.960 --> 00:04:53.640 Here, I would like to raise C.L. Stevenson's emotivism. 00:04:53.640 --> 00:04:55.990 Stevenson agreed that moral statements hold 00:04:55.990 --> 00:04:59.850 a lot more value than what emotivism initially makes out. 00:04:59.850 --> 00:05:02.390 Stevenson argued that moral statements were, 00:05:02.390 --> 00:05:04.530 in fact, deeply held beliefs. 00:05:04.530 --> 00:05:06.320 So not just an expression of emotion 00:05:06.320 --> 00:05:08.470 but a more important feeling. 00:05:08.470 --> 00:05:10.130 It is because of this that when people 00:05:10.130 --> 00:05:13.600 make moral statements, we're expecting others to agree, 00:05:13.600 --> 00:05:15.580 to adopt our deeply held beliefs 00:05:15.580 --> 00:05:19.030 and act how we expect humanity to act. 00:05:19.030 --> 00:05:20.880 Moral statements are meant to influence 00:05:20.880 --> 00:05:22.170 the behavior of others, 00:05:22.170 --> 00:05:24.860 and this is why morality is so important. 00:05:24.860 --> 00:05:28.140 - I see. - R.M. Hare also developed 00:05:28.140 --> 00:05:29.659 his prescriptivism theory as a branch 00:05:29.659 --> 00:05:34.659 off of non-cognitivism but very much mirroring emotivism. 00:05:34.850 --> 00:05:37.330 Hare argued that when one makes a moral statement, 00:05:37.330 --> 00:05:39.270 they are not just expressing their belief, 00:05:39.270 --> 00:05:41.310 but they are prescribing or recommending 00:05:41.310 --> 00:05:44.750 a course of action, a way one should behave. 00:05:44.750 --> 00:05:47.250 So unlike emotivism, moral statements are not 00:05:47.250 --> 00:05:48.930 just describing one's belief. 00:05:48.930 --> 00:05:51.850 They are also prescribing the universal way 00:05:51.850 --> 00:05:53.990 a certain person wants you to act. 00:05:53.990 --> 00:05:55.900 So when someone says, "Murder is wrong," 00:05:55.900 --> 00:05:58.437 what they're really saying is, "I do not like murder, 00:05:58.437 --> 00:06:00.410 "and I think no one should ever murder." 00:06:00.410 --> 00:06:04.110 - Okay, emotivism in general has some good points. 00:06:04.110 --> 00:06:07.490 However, Ayer, Stevenson, and Hare still ultimately believe 00:06:07.490 --> 00:06:11.230 that moral statements are not subject to truth or falsity. 00:06:11.230 --> 00:06:12.850 If we follow this line of thought, 00:06:12.850 --> 00:06:16.650 we still actually have no reason to ever act in a moral way 00:06:16.650 --> 00:06:19.970 as there is no morally right or morally wrong behavior. 00:06:19.970 --> 00:06:21.520 Genocide, murder, theft, 00:06:21.520 --> 00:06:24.300 all of these are not technically morally wrong. 00:06:24.300 --> 00:06:27.130 Human beings, then, have no true code to live by, 00:06:27.130 --> 00:06:29.640 no true code to their behavior. 00:06:29.640 --> 00:06:32.440 - Yes, I see. - However, the biggest problem 00:06:32.440 --> 00:06:36.100 with emotivism is the verification principle itself. 00:06:36.100 --> 00:06:38.530 - What do you mean? - Well, think about it. 00:06:38.530 --> 00:06:40.550 The verification principle states 00:06:40.550 --> 00:06:43.820 that a statement can only be truth apt or only have meaning 00:06:43.820 --> 00:06:46.800 if it's an analytic statement or a synthetic statement, 00:06:46.800 --> 00:06:49.670 i.e., empirically verifiable. - Yes. 00:06:49.670 --> 00:06:51.727 - Well then, the statement itself, 00:06:51.727 --> 00:06:53.767 "A statement can only have meaning if it's 00:06:53.767 --> 00:06:56.510 "an analytic statement or a synthetic statement" 00:06:56.510 --> 00:06:59.350 is not an analytic or synthetic statement. 00:06:59.350 --> 00:07:02.380 - Oh, I see. - The statement then becomes 00:07:02.380 --> 00:07:04.940 meaningless and the verification principle fails 00:07:04.940 --> 00:07:06.640 at its own criteria. 00:07:06.640 --> 00:07:08.810 If emotivism is built on that principle 00:07:08.810 --> 00:07:10.810 when the principle fails against itself, 00:07:10.810 --> 00:07:13.730 then how can we follow the emotivist line of thought? 00:07:13.730 --> 00:07:16.610 - Yes, I understand. - The verification principle 00:07:16.610 --> 00:07:18.680 then becomes a meaningless statement, 00:07:18.680 --> 00:07:21.600 and the reason why I think emotivism fails. 00:07:21.600 --> 00:07:22.600 - Well, that's a good point, 00:07:22.600 --> 00:07:24.050 but that's all the time we have for now. 00:07:24.050 --> 00:07:25.030 Thank you for watching. 00:07:25.030 --> 00:07:26.500 We hope you enjoy the vibe. 00:07:26.500 --> 00:07:28.660 What's everyone else's thoughts on emotivism? 00:07:28.660 --> 00:07:30.560 Do you think that morality is just an expression 00:07:30.560 --> 00:07:33.010 of emotion or is there something more to it? 00:07:33.010 --> 00:07:34.390 Leave your comments below. 00:07:34.390 --> 00:07:36.270 Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe 00:07:36.270 --> 00:07:37.650 and help grow this channel. 00:07:37.650 --> 00:07:39.463 Thanks again until next time.