(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.