“Ethical language is no more than expressions of emotions.” Discuss.
Emotivism is the view that rejects the idea the ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ exist, and that by
making these statements humans are simply just showing their feelings and opinions. This
theory is both non-cognitive and anti-realist and is put forward by A.J. Ayer, a philosopher who
created this theory. within meta ethics there are two other main theory’s other than
emotivism, naturalism, and intuitionism. Ethical language is argued by emotivism to be nothing
more than an expression of emotions as emotions can’t be proved right or wrong thus making
them unimportant and of nothing of note. This theory is also contrasted by the theories of
philosophers like G.E. Moore. This essay will debate the validity of the statement above and
conclude that the statement ‘ethical language is no more than expressions of emotions’ is
incorrect.
A.J. Ayer uses his verification principle that is based on the ideas of both the philosopher David
Hume and The Vienna Circle. Ayer’s verification principle combines the ideas of Hume and the
Vienna Circle to argue weather a statement is meaningful or not, there are two types of
statements according to Ayer; an analytic statement: something that is true by definition, an
example Ayer uses is that a bachelor is an unmarried man. The second statement is a synthetic
statement; a statement where in theory someone could verify it like saying ‘the cat is asleep at
4 am. Statements that don’t fit into these boxes are in Ayers opinion are not cognitive thus
becoming meaningless. Ayer uses his verification principle within his boo-hooray theory, where
there is nothing more to it than expressing your preference of actions, for example most people
will boo murder but to others might have a differing opinion on the action of murder.
Emotivism is a non-cognitive theory where no moral facts and can only verify analytic and
synthetic statements, whereas morality is simply the expressing preferences. However, it can
be argued that if morality is the expressing of emotions and thoughts then they can’t be
falsified, this is contrasted by the philosopher F.H. Bradley who argues that morality and
goodness ore a natural part of society. This is explained that society does view murder as a
something morally wrong and has laws against it within society. Thus, Bradley’s argument is
that you can factually prove morality. In agreement is Mill who is a hedonistic naturalist and
judges the morality of actions on how much pleasure they can provide. So, for both Mill and
Bradley morality is more than just expressions of thoughts and feelings and it’s a positive view
on how humanity deals with morality as well as showing that ethical language is more than just
an expression of emotions.
Ayer is not the only philosopher who believes in the theory of emotivism C.L. Stevenson while
not using Ayers verification principle, Stevenson does discuss and theorize about the emotive
reasoning behind words and why they are used. Stevenson argues that moral words like ‘steal’
or ‘respect’ that are both descriptive and moral and when used the words are not only an
expression of one’s emotions but also trying to manipulate other’s attitudes towards the topic.
This supports emotivism as Stevenson is truly arguing that it is more than an expression of
emotion and that it is more of a dynamic use, manipulate the feelings and actions of others into
your favor. A contrasting opinion to Stevenson is that Stevenson’s ideas discount the role
reason plays within the discussion of ethics so philosophers such as Hume would argue that by
discarding both reason and emotions you leave someone with nothing else to make ethical
decisions or be even able to use ethical language at all, as in Hume’s opinion hinges on the use
of both reason and emotions.
Emotivism is challenged by many philosophers who critique the statement above. Wittgenstein
accuses Ayer of making a category error within his reasoning with ethical language, the
problem pointed out by Wittgenstein is that language is like a game where anything can be
ruled as analytic, synthetic, or other. So, in Wittgenstein’s opinion the phrase “stealing is
wrong” does mean something as it belongs to a context that defines it, so it is more than just an
expression of emotion. Wittgenstein also has a logical problem with the distinction between
analytic and synthetic, as Ayers on definition of his principle is neither analytic or synthetic so
its not true by definition and can’t be proved by sense experience leading Wittgenstein to ask
whether it has itself become a meaningless principle by Ayers own definition.
To conclude the statement “ethical language is no more than expressions of emotions” has
many problems with it leading to the removal of reason and emotion from ethical language.
Ayer and Stevenson while having some compelling arguments the criticisms from both Hume
and Wittgenstein provide a clear understanding of the issues and problems that are facing the
idea of emotivism and ethical language.