Moral Philosophy: Emotivism questions and Answers
Describe the key features of emotivism.
4KU
Emotivism is a branch of meta-ethics which is concerned with the nature and validity of ethical
language; in particular, with what we are doing when we make ethical claims such as ‘abortion is
wrong’.
AJ Ayer stated that ethical claims are meaningless because they cannot be verified as true or false,
only statements which can be verified as true or false are meaningful and since moral statements
cannot be true or false they are meaningless.
Ayer said that when we make a moral claim we are not stating facts, but expressing an emotion in
the same way that we say ‘ouch’ when we hurt ourselves or when we say ‘blue bells are beautiful’. If
we make the claim that abortion is wrong we are actually saying ‘boo’ to abortion. When we make
these claims we are expressing our approval or disapproval of a particular moral issue and attempting
to make others agree with us but without stating any facts about that issue.
Explain why Emotivism is a meta-ethical theory rather than a normative theory.
6KU
Normative theories are concerned with moral issues themselves, issues such as abortion, euthanasia,
capital punishment etc are the subject matter of normative theories, therefore, normative ethics is
often referred to as a first order theory. Normative theories are also concerned with the means by
which someone chooses one course of action over another.
Meta-ethical theories ask second order questions about ethics, and are therefore not concerned with
moral issues themselves.
Meta-ethical questions can be metaphysical, linguistic or epistemological. Emotivism is concerned
with the nature and validity of ethical language and asks questions such as ‘What are we doing when
we say that something is right or wrong?’
Emotivists claim that when we make a moral statements such as ‘killing is wrong’ we are not stating
any facts about killing, but expressing our own feelings about killing i.e. that we disagree with killing.
One other function of moral statements according to emotivism is to evince the same feeling in
others.
Why do emotivists reject moral objectivism?
6KU
Moral objectivism is the position that moral statements can be verified as true of false. Moral
objectivists believe that moral statements do state facts and that they are either true or false. Moral
objectivism is the belief that there is a moral objective authority which should be obeyed. For
religious people that moral authority is God.
Emotivism is a subjective theory that claims that moral statements cannot be verified as true or false
outside of the mind of the individual, and are therefore, a matter of opinion. Opinions cannot be
verified as true or false.
Emotivists claim that moral statements are merely expressions of emotion and that they are
emotional responses to particular situations. They claim that morality is not something which exists
external to ourselves, it is not something that is out there in the world but is contained within each
individual.
If I say ‘abortion is wrong’, I am not stating any facts about abortion, all I am doing is saying that I
disapprove of abortion or ‘boo’ to abortion. Boo is neither true nor false. Emotivism therefore makes
moral statements entirely subjective because it relates meaning to how we use language, and in this
case, we use it to express an emotion which can be neither true nor false.
Although emotivists reject moral objectivism and moral statements themselves as meaningless, they
do not claim that they have no function. Ayer and Stevenson agreed that moral statements do have a
function, which is to express an emotion and to convince others to agree with them. Stevenson said
that language has two uses; descriptive and dynamic, the descriptive nature expresses facts while
the dynamic language conveys more than the literal meaning and is an expression of how we feel. If
I say ‘stealing is wrong’ I am saying that I disagree with stealing and so should you. Therefore,
emotivism rejects moral objectivism because it claims that moral statements are expressions of our
inner feelings and those feelings cannot be verified as true or false.
Does emotivism give a satisfactory account of moral disagreement and debate?
4AE
I do not think that emotivism does give a satisfactory account of moral disagreement or debate.
According to the theory of emotivism, all I am doing when I make a moral claim is expressing an
emotion or an opinion, for example, if I say ‘ I believe that child killers should be executed’ all I am
doing is expressing my hatred of child killers and trying to convince others to feel the same way. If I
express this emotion and someone else disagrees, then all we are doing is expressing our approval or
disapproval of that issue. Emotivism is concerned with what we are doing when we say that
something is right or wrong, not with the issue itself so when we say that ‘murder is wrong’ we are
not stating any facts about why we think that it is wrong, just that we believe it to be wrong. We are
not using reason when we make moral claims and so we are unable to resolve any disagreements
with others. If you say one thing and I disagree (killing is wrong) we cannot verify that either of us is
making a claim that is true or false, we are only expressing our approval or disapproval, and that is
all that we will ever do. Our attitudes to moral issues are deeply entrenched in our own attitudes and
values so emotivism does not allow resolution of disagreement on moral issues because all we are
doing is expressing that view. Emotivism does not explain how we can have moral debate with those
who agree with us already.
What do emotivists mean when they say that moral judgements do not state facts?
Emotivists would say that when we make a moral statement we are doing nothing more than saying
that we approve or disapprove of a particular issue, for example euthanasia. If I say that euthanasia
is wrong and should never be legalised, according to emotivists, I am not stating any facts about
euthanasia I am only expressing an emotion that I do not like it and neither should you. Approving or
disapproving of euthanasia does not mean that I am stating a moral fact about the issue, nothing
that I have said states a fact other than the fact that I disapprove. You cannot learn anything about
this issue if I and others make that claim, because I have not stated a fact but made a value claim.
According to emotivists, value claims are not facts because they cannot be verified as true or false.