RS: A2: Ethical Language: Emotivism

Strengths of Emotivism

It highlights the reason why moral disputes are impossible to resolve decisively.

It acknowledges and in some way values the existence of moral diversity. It is true to say that moral opinions are often formed on the basis of

gaining other’s approval or avoiding their disapproval (in childhood for example).

History reveals many examples of emotivist methods of expressing moral views, even if they are not verifiable, for example Hitler’s condemnation of the Jewish people and current extremist views such as those proposed by the Westboro Baptist Church.

RS: A2: Ethical Language: Emotivism

Problems of Emotivism

Ethical statements are not usually judged according to the response of the listener but on the claims themselves. ‘Abortion is wrong’ makes a claim which can be discussed and evaluated. Its power does not lie simply in how others respond to it.

If ethical clams were contingent on emotions, they would change as emotions changed. They cannot be universal claims as the emotions of the speakers would vary.

Even when moral statements are carried by a weight of public emotion, that does not provide reason for them to be adopted, nor does it make them right.

Emotivism effectively prescribes complete freedom of action on the basis that everyone’s opinion is equally valid and everyone is therefore free to do what they choose irrespective of the opinion of others.

How can we judge between two people’s moral opinions? What criteria is there - if any – for judging the relative merits of a moral viewpoint.

Emotions can unite people in a common moral bond, but can also isolate groups and individuals.

The emotional force with which a moral view is expressed is no recommendation of its value.

As part of the linguistic philosophy of the Logical Positivists, Ayer’s approach to ethical language may be largely discredited since it proposed a method of analysing the meaningfulness of language which it was itself unable to satisfy.