F - Meta ethical Non-Cognitive Approach - Emotivism

An introduction to Emotivism, what is it based off of?

• Ayer’s own meta-ethical theory starts with Ayer arguing that ethical language is no more than expressions of our own personal emotions.

• His theory is sometimes called ‘the hurrah/boo theory’ as making moral judgements is the same as saying ‘Hurrah’ or ‘Boo’ to something.  For example: 

• When we say: ‘stealing is bad’ we mean we personally do not like stealing or stealing brings us pain. 

• We could express this emotion by saying: ‘boo to stealing’  

• When we say: ‘giving to charity is good’ we mean we personally approve of giving to charity or we gain joy from giving to charity. 

• We could express this emotion as: ‘hurrah to giving to charity’. 

• Therefore, ethical language terms like ‘good’ or ‘bad’ are no more than expressions of our own individual emotions of approval and disapproval for a certain moral action. 

What happens when someone makes an ethical statement according to emotivism, what does this mean in terms of objectivity of moral laws?

• Theory that believes objective moral laws do not exist

• When someone says ‘stealing is wrong’ they are two elements here: 

1. They are expressing a feeling about stealing (a negative feeling) 

2. They are evoking a response in the hearer, it is trying to encourage the hearer not to steal (persuading).

• Emotional expressions and attempts to persuade cannot be judged as true and false and hence objective moral laws do not exist. 

Why is emotivism a non-cognitivist theory?

• A non-cognitivist theory, moral terms express personal emotional attitudes and not propositions

• subjective and has no method of checking/empirical evidence.

• moral claims are not true nor false.

• moral terms express personal emotional attitudes and not propositions but instead try to influence others.

• E.g. going into a shop without a face mask is wrong’ – the speaker is expressing a negative emotion about face masks and is not making a factual claim, hence there is nothing in this that can be judged as true or false.

• But instead is trying to encourage you to wear a face mask.  

What is a key quote from AJ Ayer about moral statements?

• ‘‘The man who is apparently contradicting me is merely expressing his moral sentiments so there is plainly no sense is asking which of us is in the right. For neither of us is asserting a genuine proposition.’’

Why is emotivism referred to as the boo/hurrah theory?

• Ethical terms are just expressions of personal approval (hurrah) and disapproval (boo)

• Emotivism is referred to as the boo/hurrah theory as making moral judgements is the same as saying ‘Boo’ or ‘Hurrah’ to something. 

• This is due to the non-propositional expressions of feelings. 

• Furthermore, as we are just expressing personal approval or disapproval we will then adopt these behaviours. 

How does emotivism explain why people disagree about morality?

• Explains why people disagree about morality

• If ethical propositions are just expressions of approval or disapproval then it follows that people will inevitably disagree about morality.  

• Moreover, there can never be any agreement in ethical debate and also that ethical debate becomes pointless. 

• Ethical debate will be based on just our emotions which cannot be verified or falsified then ethics becomes meaningless. 

So why, according to emotivism/Ayer are ethical statements unscientific, insignificant and unverifiable?

And unanalysable?

• AJ Ayer - ethical statements are neither verifiable nor analytic, made to express joy or pain (emotion)

• Ayer argues since ethical statements are simply expressing joy or pain (emotions) they become unscientific, insignificant and unverifiable

• i.e. there is no way of determining the validity of ethical judgements.  

• Furthermore, ethical statements are unanalysable since there is no criteria by which they can be tested for validity nor based on any empirical evidence.  

• Since ethical language is just a reflection of what an individual feels about a certain action, Ayer felt that ethical language was best left to Psychology and/or Sociology.

• This is because Psychology / Sociology could study why an individual felt a particular way about a certain ethical action. 

What is a key quote from Ayer about ethical concepts being unanalysable?

• ‘‘We begin by admitting that the fundamental ethical concepts are unanalysable, inasmuch as there is no criterion by which one can test the validity of the judgements’’

What is the function of ethical statements to be persuasive?

• AJ Ayer - ethical statements are expressed to be persuasive

• Ayer adds there is a further function to ethical judgements, and that is to arouse the same kinds of feelings in others and affect their actions.  

• Therefore the statement ‘it is good to tell the truth’ is both an expression of feeling and we are also persuading others to have that emotion about it too. 

How is emotivism not subjectivism?

• AJ Ayer - emotivism is not subjectivism

• Subjectivism is the view that values/morals arise out of the different attitudes that a person or society has towards moral issues.  

• However, emotivism is not this – for example, I may feel capital punishment is bad, but is it really our feelings about capital punishment which makes it bad?  

• i.e. my emotions towards an issue is subjective (due to upbringing, culture etc) but the values/morals we are expressing an emotion on is not going to be affected hence not subjective.  

What a challenge to emotivism in terms of - no basic moral principles can be established?

• Ayer clearly does not value ethics.

• This is because he believes that no basic ethical principle can ever be established because all ethical language is meaningless. 

• As Jeremy Hayward states: “One conclusion that can be drawn from emotivism is that no rational agreement is possible on ethical matters.”  

• Ayer, as we have seen, even believed that ethics should not even be seen as a philosophical issue, instead it would be best left to Psychology and/or Sociology.  

• One implication of the above, is that emotivism is also dismissing normative ethics (like Natural Law, Situation Ethics, Utilitarianism etc) and claiming they are meaningless, as they clearly use ethical language.   

• Therefore, when Natural Law states that people are being ‘good’ when they follow the primary precepts or when Situation Ethics states people are being ‘bad’ when they do not create agape consequences; these are all meaningless principles according to emotivism. 

• This could potentially leave people guideless (in a state of antinomianism). 

• This could lead people to become amoral and/or society could descend into anarchy.

• This is not only dangerous but also seemingly wrong as many millions of people follow ethical principles.

• As Mel Thompson states: “You cannot reduce morality to a set of cheers and boos.’’

What is a challenge to emotivism in terms of - Ethical debate becomes a pointless activity?

• As we have seen Emotivism, in Ayer’s version, does not allow for ethical debate.

• This is because there are no grounds for ethical debate, as ethical debate is reduced to nothing more than two (or more) people expressing their emotions with no meaningful substance e.g. I cannot argue you are wrong because I cannot verify my point of view and visa-versa. 

• Ethical debate is no more than a set of people making emotional noises at each other and it becomes empty and without purpose.  

• However, this would seem to be wrong because history demonstrates that ethical debates have led to clear decisions being made e.g. the abolishment of slavery, women receiving the vote, the legalising of homosexual relationships etc.  

• Furthermore, since emotivism is about persuading others then ethics becomes centred on manipulating an audience to feel the same which makes ethical debate meaningless. 

What is a challenge to emotivism in terms of - There is no universal agreement that some actions are wrong?

• Emotivism does not allow for any ethical absolutes e.g. murder is always wrong etc.  

• This is because absolutism works on the principle that there is a universal ethical belief about certain ethical actions. 

• However, emotivism does not allow for this because it can be seen as subjective i.e. ethical opinions are based on preference, opinion, upbringing etc. 

• Emotivism is not based on facts and does not give us a way to resolve moral disagreement.  

• Therefore, emotivism does not allow for universal/absolutist ethical agreements on what is wrong. 

• This seems to go against our universal Human Rights (1947) – which highlighted a set of universal, absolute rights: ‘the right to life’, ‘the right to an education’ etc.

What is a strength of emotivism in terms of individual moral feelings?

• The importance of each individual’s moral feelings is stressed.

• The subjective nature of emotivism ensures that all opinions are equally valid - it is egalitarian.

What is a strength of emotivism in terms of human nature?

• Moral opinions are often based on gaining others’ approval or avoiding disapproval - links to human nature.

What is a strength of emotivism in terms of ethical debate?

• It prevents ethicists regarding moral statements as self-evidently true, e.g. gives room for moral debate about ethical issues like murder is wrong.