Recap Task Complete the summary sheet to recap the various arguments and ideas of cognitive ethical language:

Ethical Non-Naturalism Ethical Naturalism What is it? Ethical Non-Naturalism What is it? Error Theory What is it? Arguments for: Arguments for: Arguments for: Arguments against: Arguments against: Arguments against:

Think back to last year… What was Ayer’s verification principle? Which of the following statements pass his test for meaning? Stealing money is wrong There is life after death A sister is female It is good to give money to charity It is your duty to tell the truth There are pixies in my fridge who disappear whenever I open the door The universe is expanding It is wrong to abort a 20 week old foetus The Mona Lisa is beautiful

The denial of moral truth - Emotivism Learning objectives: Understand what Emotivists claim moral statements are Know three appealing features of Emotivism Assess whether Emotivism can account for moral disagreement

Remember the verification principle? Ayer: A statement only has meaning (or is a genuine truth claim) if it is: Empirically verifiable Analytic Empirically verifiable Analytic It’s sunny outside Bachelors are male and unmarried

Recap: Realism / Cognitivism: Moral statements, or propositions, are sentences that refer to the world. They can be true or false. Anti-Realism / Non-cognitivism: Moral statements don’t refer to the world. They can’t be true or false. Logical positivism: If moral statements don’t refer to the world, and aren’t true by definition, then they are meaningless.

Moral statements ‘Murder is wrong.’ Is it analytic? Is it empirically verifiable? No: We can show certain things about the action: murder causes grief; is often done in anger etc. We can also define the term ‘The premeditated killing of someone’. But neither of these things include wrongness. Ayer: This means moral statements like this are meaningless.

So what do moral statements do? Ayer (Emotivism): Moral judgements express positive or negative emotions Importantly - They are not true or false! “X is good” = “X hurrah!” “X is bad” = “X boo!” Abortion hurrah! Abortion boo!

Emotivism Vs Subjectivism Important – don’t confuse with subjectivism! Subjectivism: Moral statements report feelings or opinions, and are therefore factual and can be true or false. My statement of “Murder is wrong” (meaning “I disapprove of murder”) is true to me because that’s what I think. Emotivism: Moral statements express feelings, and are therefore non-factual and can’t be true or false. “Murder is wrong” just means “Boo murder!” and there is nothing true or false about this. It’s similar to me cheering at a football goal – how could you describe that act as true or false?

Emotivism Vs Hume Hume also thought moral terms referred to emotional states, but he thought they described them. This led him to naturalism: emotional states are natural facts and they can be described in moral terms. Ayer does not agree: He thinks moral terms express emotional states. They are therefore not stating anything about the world itself.

Which statement is true? Brrrr! I feel cold! For emotivists moral statements are more like ‘Brrrr’ – they express personal feelings.

C. L. Stevenson’s addition to emotivism: Moral statements also have a social function They attempt to arouse similar feelings in others and get them to act accordingly Abortion boo! You abortion boo too!

“Boo to gay marriage, you should feel this way too” In other words… “Boo to gay marriage, you should feel this way too”

Quick Recap Task Why does Ayer think that moral statements are meaningless? What does he think they do instead? Give an example to illustrate this way of using language (try to use one we’ve not already mentioned). What addition does C.L Stevenson make to emotivism?

Strengths and weaknesses of emotivism Can you identify?... Strengths and weaknesses of emotivism

Which is best reason to support it? Why? Appealing features Anti-Realist: no need to justify mysterious moral properties existing outside human minds. Stevenson’s addition explains moral motivation. Accounts for diversity between humans – feelings differ from person to person. Could lead to more tolerance / less dogmatism – No right and wrong; so will learn to respect feelings and judgments of others. Which is best reason to support it? Why?

Problem one Emotivism over-simplifies ethical discussion There can be no reasoning about our moral disagreements What’s the difference?

Ayer’s response Moral disagreements don’t actually exist What exists are disagreements about facts When debating an ethical point, we draw attention to particular facts E.g. the extent of animal suffering in factory farms Once we agree about the facts of the matter we will come to the same moral conclusions If we don’t – it will turn out we are still disagreeing about the facts!

Response to Ayer? There is still no place for rationality about values? Surely we are able to reason about our moral values, not just the facts they relate to? For Ayer, ultimately, whether something is wrong or right comes down to expressing a ‘gut feeling’.

Problem Two – Emotivism focuses on form, not content We can value what we like Emotivism identifies moral judgements with expressing approval and disapproval, rather than a particular content. So surely anything could be a moral judgement, as long as it involves approval? Moreover: We choose what to approve/disapprove of (our value judgements) Our values are simply are reflection of this Imagine someone approved of maximising the number of florists in Yorkshire, and all their ‘moral’ feelings and actions related to this: they are willing to do anything to pursue their goal (even murder), they try to stop florists from closing down, they try to change the law to protect florists in Yorkshire, they feel no disapproval towards theft, lying, disloyalty, no approval of kindness or courage – unless they relate to florists in Yorkshire. Such a person would be classed as a psychopath! Yet emotivism seems to allow this as a moral standpoint.

Response? Yes, we do choose what we value. But our choices are guided by our nature. As humans we have particular needs and a particular nature. So we can’t value just anything – there is a factual (but not a logical) restriction.

Evaluation: We still need a way to distinguish moral approval and disapproval from other types (e.g. aesthetic, taste) What should I do?

Problem Three Emotivism rests on the idea that moral statements cannot refer to the world, because they are unverifiable. All they do is express something. What is the problem with this? (Think back to last year)