Meta Ethics (2)

Question 1

Define Emotivism?

Answer 1

• Theory promoted by the logical positivists that ethical sentences simply evince emotions
• They are strictly meaningless

Question 2

Give examples of how emotivists would interpret ethical language?

Answer 2

• Good, bad, right and wrong are emotional states of disapproval
• These used in ethical sentences are meaningless

Question 3

What is the boo/hurrah theory by A.J. Ayer?

Answer 3

• When one says ‘murder is wrong’ it is equivalent to saying ‘boo to murder’
• Saying ‘giving to charity is good’ is equivalent to saying ‘hurrah to giving to charity’
• Shows how ethical statements are merely emotional states of what is deemed right and wrong

Question 4

What do logical positivists believe are meaningful statements

Answer 4

• Statements are only meaningful if it is a tautology and true by definition
• Ethical statements on the other hand, e.g murder is wrong, is not true by definition nor gives reason for the wrongness for murder
• Hume may be right that there is no factual element and therefore ethical statements cannot be verified and are meaningless

Question 5

Two Quotes of Ayers idea of emotivism?

Answer 5

“ethical judgements are mere expressions of feeling”
“stealing money is wrong… sentence with no factual meaning”

Question 6

How does emotivism confuse conclusively proving something and giving reasons for something

Answer 6

• Can be said they set the bar too high with having to conclusively prove something for it to be valid
• We can still give reasons for ethical statements which are valid, e.g I might say murder is wrong because of the pain it puts their family through
• This shows how emotivism renders ethical judgements meaningless without considering the very valid reasons they are arisen

Question 7

How can emotivism lead to a lack of rational ethical discourse?

Answer 7

• To say that all ethical statements are meaningless discards rational ethical discourse
• if someone is being racist the victim, if an emotivist, would have no way of justifying how a non-racist view is of more value and superiority
• Emotivism shuts down rational ethical discourse

Question 8

What is American Philosopher Alan Gewirth’s ‘Principle of Generic Consistency’?

Answer 8

• Idea that human life necessarily requires treating everyone else as having the same rights and duties as myself
• Humans are not self-sufficient and rather we are in contractual obligations with most other people
• If we then treat them badly we put ourselves at a loss too, being moral is a reality based living not logical living

Question 9

How does Wojtyla argue in line with Gerwith?

Answer 9

• Argument that ethical demand grows out of human encounter
• We encounter the emotions of love, desire, needs and demands, things we need to be moral
• If this is the case then perhaps we need a different measure of ethics, not a scientific one