Emotivism

There are two philosophers linked with this; Ayer and Stevenson.

But before we look at either ot them, we have to look at the context.

Before their work, there was a guy called Bertrand Russell. He said that we do not know what is right or wrong because neither are objectively due to their being no evidence. How can we prove that stabbing someone, no matter how horrible it seems, hwo is it not wrong?

He also said that moral statements simple arouse emotions. we shoudl know that the values of good and bad are not objective but subjective. Furthermore, Russell said that for something to be self evident, it cannot be proven or disproven. Richard Norma then said that 'they are statements and convey no meaning'.

Hume's Fork is a way of categorising ethics. There is either the logic side, or the empirical experience side. Ethical propositions must fit into either of the two to be verified. But ethical propositons do not fit into either...

Before we go onto Ayer's work it is important to recognise that although he said they are not verifiable, it does not mean that you cannot make ethical debate about them.

Ayer said that ethical statements can be broken down into 4 categories

1) Propositons that express definition of ethical terms such as the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Ayer said that this class relates to meta-ethics

2) Propositions that desbire human experiences that are moral and their causes-'Giving money to charity is right'. This category belongs to psychology and sociology because it is relating to our behaviour.

3) Exhortations (commands) to do good-'Be a good person'. These are simply commands and do not belong to philosophy or science

4) Ethical judgements that ascribe value-'Murder is wrong'. These are simply personal opinion.

Ayer also said that emotivism is not subjectivism. Subjectivism says that our opinion is based on different attitudes based on the knowledge from our society. Emotivism on the other hand, does not need knowledge to base emotions on.

Ayer also rejected intutionism because he said that it was not verifiable. Particularly, you cannot say which is the best course of action where there are two ideas derived from using our inutition.

Overall, Ayer said that you cannot determine how valid ethical judgements are because they have no objective value. Ethical statements are purely expressions of feeling. Ethical ideas are just 'pseudo-concepts'.

In conclusion, Ayer said that moral truths are not unimportant and trivial even though they are not valid.

All moral theories such as intutionist, naturalist theories are neutral because they do not say anything about the actions themsevles. Lastly, there are is difference between ethics propoer and meta-ethics. Ayer considered meta-ethics to be the true realm of philosophy.

Stevenson:

Stevenson was the philsopher who developed emotivism into a full bodied systematic theory.

Emotivism is also called the boo-hurrah theory becaus Ayer said that ehtical statemetns are nothign but personal opnion.

Stevenson said that we need to make ethical question clear. This meant that talking about good had to enable disagreement, have appeal to act in its favour and to be unverifiable.

His idea of emotivism was called interest theory.

It refers to how ethical propositions are used. 1) how they acquire meaning and 2) how dynamic power influecnes its meaning.

We use ethical statements to evoke opinion. Stevenson called this the 'causal of dispositional propoerty' of a propostion.

'The emotive meaning of a wrod is the tendency of a word arising from the history of its use to produce a response'. This means that ethical wrods are suited to an emotive menaing because they had a dynamic use.

Emotivism explains why people disagree about morality-it's because of difference in opinion.

Some may say that ethical debate becomes pointless because there can never be any agreement then.

However Stevenson said that there could be. In doing so, he made the difference betwen propositions about belief and propositions about attitude. Beliefs are more to do with facts, whereas attitudes reveal what a person thinks about things.

Ethical debate is because people want to change the other person's attitudes and not beliefs.

It explains why moral disputes are hard to resolve.

It is also true to say that moral opinions come from gaining approval-Freudian psychology backs this view up.

Stevenson's view of emotivism being to influence a person moves beyond Emotivism as a 'Shouting match'.

Morality is more than just an expression of feeling.

It does not allow for a discussion about morality.

No basic moral principle or law is established.

There is no universal agreement on what is right and wrong.

If ethical statements were reliant on feelings, then they would be forever changing. There cannot be a universal claim.

Even if there is enough opinion that shares this view, it is not enough to make it true.

How can we judge between two people's opinions.