Emotivism

• Intuitionists reject the naturalist claim that moral knowledge is

absolute and can be seen in the facts of the world through our
senses.
• Some would also disagree with intuitionists as well and argue
that morality is no kind of fact at all: it’s all relative.
• The Vienna Circle in the 1920s
• accepted Hume’s idea that you cannot go from “is” to “ought’: from
fact to moral.
• accepted his claim that morality was sentiment and nothing more.
• Intuitionists believe that morality can be identified, even if not
through verifiable science, while emotivism rejects the existence
of things that cannot be proved by verifiable science.
• Therefore they are relativists.

Emotivism: ethical theories that hold that moral statements are not statements of fact but are
either beliefs or emotions
Vienna Circle: a group of philosophers known as logical positivists who rejected claims that
moral truth can be verified as objectively true
 A.J. Ayer

• 1910-1989
• He thought that there were
three kinds of judgements:
logical, factual and moral.
• Morals are relative only to our
feelings or emotions.
• They tell us about the person
and their emotions, not the
external world.
• Therefore Ayer holds that
there are no fixed, moral
truths.
 A.J. Ayer
• A meaningful statement about the world is one that
can be verified.
• There are two categories of meaningful statements:
• Factual statements: verified by our senses. E.g. it is
raining outside.
• Logical statements: verified analytically. E.g. 2 + 2 =
4. they are true by definition.
• Moral and theological judgements are not observable
and not verified by definition. They are not, therefore,
facts about the world.
• Emotivism is sometimes called the ‘hurrah/boo
theory.”
• To say “generosity is good,” is to say, “hurrah to
generosity” and to say “lying is bad,” is to say, “boo to
lying.”
 A.J. Ayer

• Ayer writes:
• “for in saying that a certain type of action is right or
wrong, I am not making any factual statement, not
even a statement about my own state of mind. I am
merely expressing certain moral sentiments. And the
man who is ostensibly contradicting me is merely
expressing his moral sentiments. So there is plainly no
sense in asking which of us in the right. For neither of
us is asserting genuine proposition.”
• Moral arguments are expressions of feelings.
• Last Supper Trailer
• Outwitting the Liberals
• Outwitting the Liberals Part 2
 C.L. Stevenson

• American philosopher
• 1908-1979
• He developed Ayer’s thinking.
• Ayer classified moral statements as emotional
expressions, but Stevenson linked them to attitudes.
• People express a moral opinion, not as an emotional
response, but as an expression of an attitude or belief
that they have.
• Moral judgements include:
• An element that seeks to persuade or influence others.
• An element of expressing an attitude relative to a fundamental
belief
 C.L. Stevenson
• Stevenson appreciated the strong roots that underline
people’s disagreements more fully that Ayer.
• Moral language is relative to the beliefs that people hold.
• Ayer saw moral disagreements as arguments about
preferences, Stevenson saw them as arguments about
different beliefs.
• In fact, there were more differences of opinion about what
to do, rather than arguments or genuine disagreements.
• For example, people rarely disagree about whether theft is
right or wrong, but they may disagree about an
appropriate punishment for it.
• Emotivism challenges the idea that the term ‘good’
represents any kind of fixed morality.
• Therefore its relative.
• What would Stevenson say about Last Supper?
 Emotivism
According to emotivism, which of these statements are
factual judgements, which are analytical judgements
and which are moral (and therefore meaningless)
statements?
The Pope is a holy man
The squirrel is behind the tree
An equilateral triangle is a three-sided polygon where
all three sides are equal
A virgin has not had sex
Heaven is where we hope to go when we die
I must have left my mobile phone under his bed
You murdered my sunflower.
 Evaluating Emotivism

• Emotivism challenges the foundations of morality.

• They reject any sense that morality is beyond
themselves.
• It cannot lead to a ’therefore…’ statement because its
an interior individual perspective of the world.
• Those that claim morality is absolute are mistaken.
• Therefore, Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism are all
mistaken and incorrect.
• While Bradley sought to incorporate morality into
society, but Ayer sought to eradicate any moral
grounding from the social order entirely.
 Evaluating Emotivism

• Alistair MacIntyre is not satisfied by emotivism.

• He questions ‘emotive meaning.’
• He says that thing that makes moral utterances a
guide to our actions is their relevance to the people
around them, not about whether they are factual or
descriptive.
• For example, to say your house is on fire means
something very different if you hear the news on
holiday or if you hear it shouted while you are in your
home in bed.
• Emotivists merge meaning and use. They do not
distinguish between statements that change
significance when used differently.
 Evaluating Emotivism

• Secondly, MacIntyre argues that Stevenson paints a

picture of a thoroughly unpleasant world where
everyone is trying to get ahead by enforcing their
views on each other.

• He also argues that Stevenson does not explain how

the moral views are formed in the first place.

• Thirdly, emotivism is according to MacIntyre, opaque.

It does not give any help in explaining how we can
distinguish the feelings and attitudes that are moral
from other feelings and attitudes we might have.
 Emotivism
• This theory that believes objective moral laws do not exist.
• This is a non-cognitivist theory; moral terms express personal
emotional attitudes and not propositions
• Ethical terms are just expressions of
personal approval (hurrah) or disapproval (boo); explains why people
disagree about morality. Emotivism is often referred to as ‘boo hurrah
ethics’.
• A.J. Ayer - ethical statements are neither verifiable nor analytic; made
to express joy or pain (emotion). Moral statements are discussed in
order to be persuasive.
• Emotivism is not subjectivism (based merely on opinions). Rather
moral views are statements of emotion.
 Emotivism
A.J. Ayer, author of Language, Truth and Logic (1936)

• A key form of ethical non-naturalism is Emotivism – the view

that morals can be understood purely as emotional responses.
• The theory can be traced back to the Logical Positivists – a
group of philosophers who gave ethical language a scientific
definition, ignoring the idea of real or natural values.
• The 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume had argued
that ethics amounts only to ‘sentiments’ (feelings), and this idea
was later taken up by the modern English philosopher, A.J.
Ayer.
• According to Ayer’s Verification Principle, language is only
meaningful if it can be verified (shown to be true) either
analytically or synthetically. Ayer did not think that this applied
The nature of ethical language, according to Ayer

• Ayer argued that ethical language really

expresses our feelings about something
or somebody we do / do not like.
• We simply express our approval or
disapproval, so that to say ‘lying is
wrong’ is a bit like saying ‘boo to lying’.
• Ayer claimed, “in saying a certain type of
action is right or wrong, I am not making
any factual statement … I am merely
Emotivism:
expressing certain moral sentiments.”
• So, ethics just amounts to our subjective
‘Stealing is wrong’ …
feelings. Often, Ayer’s theory is thus
called the ‘boo-hurrah’ theory of ethics.
just means ‘boo to stealing!’
Strengths of command in Ayer’s Emotivism

However, in this theory it is not the

case that all emotive statements
are equal. Moral statements
arouse feelings, but with three
different strengths of command.
So, implying a duty is the
strongest form of statement.
Saying that one ‘ought’ to do
something is less strong. Finally,
merely stating that something is
good/bad is very weak.
This is all emotion, but it functions
with different intensity.
 More Emotivism – C.L. Stevenson
• Another key Emotivist philosopher was C.L. Stevenson,
who developed similar ideas to Ayer.
• However, unlike Ayer, Stevenson claimed that there are
such things as real disagreements in attitudes, rather than
just differing emotions.
• Stevenson did not just emphasise the persuasive side of
ethics, but also the view that attitudes are based on beliefs.
• So, if I say that ‘capital punishment is wrong’, I have an
attitude which is shaped by my prior beliefs. Disagreements
are not just different emotions, but also issues of different
underlying convictions – what life is, its value, etc.
• Stevenson’s views thus give more meaning to moral
disagreement, whereas Ayer only sees these as conflicts of
feelings.
 Strengths of Emotivism

• Ayer’s approach to ethics lacks the problem of speculative

and metaphysical ideas – it is based on the observation of
behaviour, rather than God or timeless forms.
• It is easy to think of ideas which link with Emotivism –
people making moral claims with great emotional
conviction and less ‘proof’.
• Stevenson is able to explain the complex meaning of
ethical terms and gives some hope for resolving ethical
disputes, because he emphasises underlying beliefs and
definitions.
 Weaknesses of Emotivism
• No basic moral principles can be established.
• There is no universal agreement that some actions are wrong. In the
case of terrible crimes, it seems inadequate to say that condemnation of
these is ‘just emotion’. Surely something like genocide is intrinsically
wrong. Therefore, there is no universal agreement that genocide is
wrong.
• James Rachels criticises Emotivism for removing reason from moral
judgements; in our morality we appeal to reason, as in any other aspect
of life. Some think that ‘murder is wrong’ is rational (we think about it
very carefully and weigh up the pros and cons) rather than emotional.
• Some think that if moral views are simply based on emotion then ethical
debates become a meaningless activity.
• Ethical debate becomes a pointless activity. Peter Vardy criticises Ayer’s
Emotivism for being an ‘ethical non-theory’ because it only discusses
emotion and does not really deal with the idea of actions being ethical at
all.
The idea that ethical language is Intuitionism and Emotivism are both very
non-factual is extremely radical. different from the normative ethical
Are there no moral truths? Your theories we’ve looked at: Kant, Natural
view counts. Law, etc. Which do you think is best?

Ideas to Evaluate

Criticisms of religious language are

The idea that we ‘just know’ right or a bit like criticisms of some ethical
wrong intuitively is really intriguing, theories, because both can be
but can we agree? Do we have to ‘metaphysical’. Could it be that
learn our morals through discussion claims about God or what is
and reason instead? ultimate are all meaningless?