Do you remember 1 What is the difference

Do you remember? 1. What is the difference between cognitivism and non-cognitivism in ethics? 2. What is the difference between realism and anti-realism in ethics? 3. What do naturalists believe about ethical language? 4. Outline Moore’s open question argument for non-naturalism. 5. What is prescriptivism?

Recap- Key Terms Cognitivism Non-cognitivism • Moral judgements are propositions which are ‘truth-apt’– they are statements that can be considered true or false. • Ethical sentences do not express propositions (statements) so therefore they cannot be true or false. Moral realism Moral anti-realism • In some sense moral terms refer to something real in the world. • For example pleasure, happiness, utility, the moral law or God’s command. • Moral laws can be discovered. Ethical Naturalists Moral properties are natural properties and can be examined as such. They relate to something we can examine through sense experience and science. • Moral terms do not refer to anything real or the in world, but are something else entirely • For example your personal attitude towards something. • Moral laws cannot be discovered in the world. Ethical Non-Naturalists Moral properties are a distinct kind of property and whilst they are definitely part of the world (moral realism) we cannot easily examine them through experience and science.

Recap- continued Intuitionism Moral values are known by intuition, can’t be defined and they are self evident like ‘yellow’. What is Naturalistic fallacy? • Against naturalism. • Good and bad are not natural properties. • You cant verify moral statements. • You can have open questions. The open-question argument 1. If good was really e. g. • What if, for example, youpleasure, define good That is, ‘good’ thenasitpleasure? would not make sense is to reduced to (means exactly the same ask whether pleasure really was things as) pleasure. But if I was then good. to ask you, “I get pleasure poisoning 2. the. It water does make sense system, but to is itask good? ” then all I ampleasure really saying get whether reallyis, is“Igood pleasure from poisoning the water 3. system, Therefore is not pleasure. but isgood it pleasure? ” 4. The same is true for any we give of good • Mydefinition first question seems to be a valid moral question, whereas the latter C: Therefore good is indefinable question makes no sense at all.

Prescriptivism Moral statements are not just expressions of emotions, but commands or recommendations related to behaviour.

Emotivism Explore and analyse the role of emotivism as a response to the problem of ethical language.

Short video about emotivism • https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=Wi. R 1 Dtlu. Xss

What is Emotivism? • Emotivism is a non-cognitive meta-ethical theory. • Non-cognitivism says that ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, ‘wrong’ have no actual existence and that morality is a matter of personal feelings, opinions. • Emotivism states quite simply that ethical language is only used in expressions of feeling. • When we say 'murder is wrong', we're not saying that it is immoral; we're saying that we don't like the idea. • It is linked to relativism which states that there can be no known, fixed moral truths.

What is logical positivism? • 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 planned killing of someone’. • But neither of these things include wrongness. According to Ayer this means that all moral statements like this are meaningless.

How Logical Positivism influences emotivism? A statement only has meaning (or is a genuine truth claim) if it is: • Synthetic (Verifiable by evidence in the world) • Analytic (true by definition) Synthetic • • It’s sunny outside It’s snowing There’s a squirrel in that tree That chair is brown [These are all synthetic statements they can be verified by our five senses] Analytic • Bachelors are male and unmarried • 1+1=2 • All triangles have 3 sides • All spinsters are unmarried women [All of these statements are true in themselves – they are true by definition]

So what are moral statements? • Moral statements cannot be verified synthetically or analytically. • Therefore they are not truths or facts. • Moral statements are simply expressions of preference, attitude or feeling.

In pairs What was Ayer’s verification principle? According to the logical positivist, which of the following statements is meaningful? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Stealing money is wrong. 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. 6. The universe is expanding. 7. It is wrong to abort a 20 week old foetus. 8. The Mona Lisa is beautiful.

So far……after having considered the 1. Stealing money is wrong. statements • What have you understood about emotivism? 2. A sister is female. 3. It is good to give money to charity. 4. It is your duty to tell the truth. • How it is influenced by the logical positivism? 5. There are pixies in my fridge who disappear whenever I open the door. 6. The universe is expanding. 7. It is wrong to abort a 20 week old foetus. 8. The Mona Lisa is beautiful.

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

Emotivism Vs Subjectivism Remember - don’t confuse with subjectivism! Subjectivism: Emotivism: • Moral statements report feelings or opinions, and are therefore factual and can be true or false. • Moral statements express feelings, and are therefore nonfactual 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? • My statement of “Murder is wrong” is true to me because that’s what I think.

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

In other words… “I disapprove of gay marriage and so should you”

Emotivism - A. J Ayer Emotivism helps us understand moral statements. • ‘Ethical terms do not serve only to express feelings, They are calculated also to arouse feeling, and so to stimulate action’. • Two kinds of meaningful statements – analytic (all bachelors are unmarried men) and synthetic (the Battle of Hastings was in 1066). • Ethical statements are not verifiable – they can only be understood as a expression of feelings. • Boo/Hurrah theory

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!

Emotivism - C. L Stevenson • Book – Ethics and Language (1944) • Discussed the emotive meaning of words. When making a moral judgement we are offering our opinion on it but also trying to influence others’ attitudes. • Ethical statements are therefore based on emotions but ALSO on our experience of the world and how we want it to be. • Ethical disagreements are disagreements about fundamental principles.

According to Stevenson, what are the two ingredients of a moral statement? 1. An expression of an attitude based on a belief 2. A persuasive element which seeks to influence others.

Recap 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. What addition does C. L Stevenson make to emotivism?

Emotivism Difference Prescriptivism There is a key difference in the way emotivism sees moral language as an attempt to influence others, whereas prescriptivism sees it as guiding action. So for emotivists, if our Prime minister tells us 'it is wrong to join terrorist organisations fighting in other countries' then she is trying to affect our attitudes and behaviour so that we don't join a terrorist organisations. She is trying to persuade us. But, for the prescriptivist the essence of moral language is not to influence but to guide: May is actually saying 'Do not join terrorist organisations'. The emotivist doesn't think Theresa has much more to add, as for them ethical language is non-rational. The words are meaningless so any discussion is about the facts rather than the judgements. Hare’s prescriptivism accounts for our expectation that May would be able to offer reasons for her instruction, and be able to enter into a discussion with us about these reasons.

Look at the page 110 in the reading booklet Can you identify? . . . Strengths and weaknesses of emotivism

Appealing features 1. Anti-Realist: no need to justify mysterious moral properties existing outside human minds. 2. Stevenson’s addition explains moral motivation. 3. Accounts for diversity between humans – feelings differ from person to person. 4. 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?

What’s good about Emotivism? • Emotivism's subjective nature allows all opinions to be equally valid - it is egalitarian • Culturally aware - arranged marriage, for example, could be good or bad depending on the stance of different cultures • It effectively resolves the argument as to why moral disputes can never be resolved • In childhood especially, it is often true to say that our moral language is intended to be reciprocal (mutual) Which one is the best to support? Why?

What’s wrong with Emotivism? • Emotivism belittles our ability to reason • Emotivism wrongly compares stubbing one's toe to making moral statements, and called moral feelings convictions. (James Rachels) • "You cannot reduce morality to a set of cheers and boos. " (Mel Thompson) • Peter Vardy accused emotivism of being "hot air and nothing else" • Virtue ethicist Alasdair Mac. Intyre argues that emotivism wrongly places child carers and paedophiles as equals

Evaluating Emotivism • Ayer might be wrong to compare emotive responses to moral statements, as moral judgements appeal to reasons. • Emotivism reduces moral discussions to a shouting match. • Emotivism reduces moral reactions about atrocities such as genocide, murder rape to subjective personal feelings. • People express common reactions to horrific crimes such as mass murder and genocide, which suggests the possibility of a reasonable basis for moral behaviour. • Emotivism can only be right if every attempt to give morality an objective rational justification has failed. • Ayer Stevenson took seriously the importance of language in ethical studies, and have forced philosophers to consider the meaning of ethical statements.

Task Using the terms ‘expression’, ‘attitude’ and ‘belief’ explain. 1. What Ayer argues is meant by the following moral statements? What Stevenson argues is meant by these statements? a. Murder is wrong. b. Abortion is good. c. Euthanasia is bad. d. Genocide is despicable. How Stevenson’s explanation of moral disagreement is differ from Ayer’s?

Homework Complete the summary sheet on ‘Meta-ethics’

Extension Emotivism Prescriptivism

5 minutes – on whiteboards • Is Ayer right that when people (with similar moral education) disagree about morals they are simply disagreeing about the facts? • Use an example to explain your answer.

• How do we know when a statement is moral, according to emotivists? 1. It expresses approval or disapproval 2. It involves an attempt to persuade or influence

Possible exam questions To what extent is ethical language meaningful? ‘All ethical language is prescriptive’. Assess. To what extent do moral statements have objective meaning? Critically assess the view that the word ‘good’ has no real meaning.