A.J Ayer's Emotivism - Non Cognitivism (Metaethics) — Transcript

Full transcript

1. 0:00[Music]
2. 0:06Hello and welcome to Philosophy Vibe,
3. 0:08the channel where we discuss and debate
4. 0:09different philosophical ideas. Today
5. 0:11we're going to be carrying on with
6. 0:12metaeththics and looking at a very
7. 0:14interesting topic known as emotivism.
8. 0:17Now emotivism is a non-cognitive
9. 0:20approach to ethics. John, would you like
10. 0:22to explain what non-cognitivism is? So
11. 0:25non-cognitivism is the branch of
12. 0:26metaeththics which argues that there is
13. 0:28no truth or falsity to moral language.
14. 0:32All moral statements are not statements
15. 0:34of fact. They are not subject to
16. 0:36cognition and therefore morality cannot
17. 0:38be known. Correct. Now emotivism is a
18. 0:42branch of non-cognitivism developed by
19. 0:44the philosopher AJ Aar a argued that
20. 0:47because moral statements are not truth
21. 0:49apt to all moral statements are just an
22. 0:51expression of a person's belief. Moral
23. 0:54statements are not themselves true in
24. 0:56any way. Moral statements are in fact
25. 0:58meaningless. All a moral statement is is
26. 1:01a person's feeling or emotion towards a
27. 1:03certain situation. So if someone says
28. 1:06stealing is wrong, all they're in fact
29. 1:08saying is I believe stealing is wrong.
30. 1:11However, stealing is wrong as a
31. 1:13statement is neither true or false. It
32. 1:16is a meaningless statement. Emotivism
33. 1:18has also come to be known as the Buhar
34. 1:21theory. As moral statements are just an
35. 1:23expression of feeling, saying stealing
36. 1:25is wrong, it's just in fact saying boo
37. 1:27stealing. Or if I say giving to charity
38. 1:30is good, it's the equivalent of me
39. 1:32saying harrah charity. Wow, that's quite
40. 1:35a radical approach to ethics. Agreed.
41. 1:37But there are some interesting points to
42. 1:39think about. AJ was part of a wider
43. 1:42philosophical thought known as logical
44. 1:44positivism. Logical positivists believe
45. 1:47that a statement is only truth if it is
46. 1:49either an analytic statement or a
47. 1:51synthetic statement. This is known as
48. 1:53the verification principle. An analytic
49. 1:56statement is one that is true by the
50. 1:58meaning alone. Like me saying a bachelor
51. 2:01is an unmarried man. It's true by
52. 2:03definition. A synthetic statement needs
53. 2:06empirical evidence to be proven right or
54. 2:09wrong. Something that can be tested by
55. 2:11the five senses. So if I say there is a
56. 2:14tree at the bottom of the road, you can
57. 2:16go and empirically verify if that
58. 2:18statement is true or false. Yes, I see.
59. 2:20Now a argues that moral statements are
60. 2:22not analytic, but nor are they
61. 2:24synthetic. We cannot prove moral
62. 2:27statements right or wrong by using
63. 2:28empirical evidence. Someone may say
64. 2:31stealing is wrong, but how can we
65. 2:33empirically test that? Sure, we might be
66. 2:35shown the effects of stealing on the
67. 2:36victims in the emotional damage it
68. 2:38causes, but this is not empirical proof
69. 2:40that stealing is wrong. It might be
70. 2:42proof that stealing causes emotional
71. 2:44damage, but not that it's wrong. Yes, I
72. 2:46see.
73. 2:48So then, stealing is wrong becomes
74. 2:50neither a true statement or a false
75. 2:52statement, but a meaningless one, and
76. 2:54just the expression of feeling by the
77. 2:56individual saying it. I still don't feel
78. 2:58truly satisfied in thinking all morality
79. 3:01is just feelings and there is no truth
80. 3:03to any of it. Well, let's look at the
81. 3:04strengths of emotivism. Firstly, it
82. 3:07doesn't suffer any problems from Moore's
83. 3:08open question argument. Do you remember
84. 3:10this? Yes, this was the argument that
85. 3:13any attempt to reduce moral statements
86. 3:15to natural statements is a mistake and
87. 3:17morality cannot be defined in natural
88. 3:19terms. Correct? Well, as we see,
89. 3:22emotivism does not try to say moral
90. 3:24statements are analytically equivalent
91. 3:25to natural statements as they are just a
92. 3:28person's feeling. There is no truth or
93. 3:29falsity attached. But more argued from a
94. 3:32cognitive position of ethics. He claimed
95. 3:34moral statements could still be known
96. 3:36through our moral intuition. Yes, but
97. 3:38according to a moral intuition does not
98. 3:41meet the verification principle. So we
99. 3:43have no basis to believe in it. Right. I
100. 3:46see. Also, emotivism better explains why
101. 3:49we have moral disagreements that can
102. 3:50never be resolved. How can two people
103. 3:53both believe they are morally right and
104. 3:55yet never agree on what that is. It is
105. 3:57because morally right does not exist. It
106. 3:59is just two different beliefs from two
107. 4:01different people. Emotivism also
108. 4:04explains how different cultures and
109. 4:06different time periods can have
110. 4:08different attitudes to morality. Once
111. 4:10upon a time, infanticide was common
112. 4:13place in Sparta, where sick or deformed
113. 4:15babies were cast out to die. Now,
114. 4:18something like this would never happen.
115. 4:20Arranged marriages are common place in
116. 4:22some cultures, but seem oppressive and
117. 4:24wrong in others. I understand, but
118. 4:26doesn't emotivism just oversimplify
119. 4:28morality and reduce moral statements to
120. 4:30something trivial? We know moral
121. 4:33statements are important in shaping
122. 4:34one's world and one's culture. If they
123. 4:37are nothing more than an expression of
124. 4:38feeling, then saying murder is wrong
125. 4:41holds the same value as saying I dislike
126. 4:43tomato ketchup. But we know moral
127. 4:46statements are so much more important
128. 4:48than that. Good point. Here I would like
129. 4:50to raise CL Stevenson's emotivism.
130. 4:53Stevenson agreed that moral statements
131. 4:55hold a lot more value than what
132. 4:57emotivism initially makes out. Stevenson
133. 5:00argued that moral statements were in
134. 5:02fact deeply held beliefs. So not just an
135. 5:05expression of emotion but a more
136. 5:06important feeling. It is because of this
137. 5:09that when people make moral statements,
138. 5:11we're expecting others to agree to adopt
139. 5:14our deeply held beliefs and act how we
140. 5:16expect humanity to act. Moral statements
141. 5:19are meant to influence the behavior of
142. 5:21others and this is why morality is so
143. 5:24important. I see. RM Hair also developed
144. 5:28his prescriptivism theory as a branch
145. 5:30off of non-cognitivism but very much
146. 5:32mirroring emotivism.
147. 5:34Hair argued that when one makes a moral
148. 5:36statement, they are not just expressing
149. 5:38their belief but they are prescribing or
150. 5:40recommending a course of action, a way
151. 5:43one should behave. So unlike emotivism,
152. 5:46moral statements are not just describing
153. 5:48one's belief, they are also prescribing
154. 5:50the universal way a certain person wants
155. 5:52you to act. So when someone says murder
156. 5:55is wrong, what they're really saying is
157. 5:57I do not like murder and I think no one
158. 5:59should ever murder. Okay, emotivism in
159. 6:02general has some good points. However, A
160. 6:05Stevenson and hair still ultimately
161. 6:07believe that moral statements are not
162. 6:09subject to truth or falsity. If we
163. 6:11follow this line of thought, we still
164. 6:13actually have no reason to ever act in a
165. 6:15moral way as there is no morally right
166. 6:18or morally wrong behavior. Genocide,
167. 6:20murder, theft, all of these are not
168. 6:22technically morally wrong. Human beings
169. 6:25then have no true code to live by, no
170. 6:27true code to their behavior. Yes, I see.
171. 6:31However, the biggest problem with
172. 6:32emotivism is the verification principle
173. 6:35itself. What do you mean? Well, think
174. 6:37about it. The verification principle
175. 6:40states that a statement can only be
176. 6:41truthapped or only have meaning if it's
177. 6:44an analytic statement or a synthetic
178. 6:46statement, i.e. empirically verifiable.
179. 6:48Yes. Well, then the statement itself, a
180. 6:52statement can only have meaning if it's
181. 6:53an analytic statement or a synthetic
182. 6:55statement is not an analytic or
183. 6:58synthetic statement. Oh, I see. The
184. 7:01statement then becomes meaningless and
185. 7:03the verification principle fails at its
186. 7:05own criteria. If emotivism is built on
187. 7:08that principle and the principle fails
188. 7:09against itself, then how can we follow
189. 7:12the emotivist line of thought? Yes, I
190. 7:14understand. The verification principle
191. 7:16then becomes a meaningless statement and
192. 7:18the reason why I think emotivism fails.
193. 7:21Well, that's a good point, but that's
194. 7:22all the time we have for now. Thank you
195. 7:24for watching. We hope you enjoyed the
196. 7:25vibe. What's everyone else's thoughts on
197. 7:27emotivism? Do you think that morality is
198. 7:29just an expression of emotion, or is
199. 7:31there something more to it? Leave your
200. 7:33comments below. Don't forget to like,
201. 7:35share, and subscribe and help grow this
202. 7:37channel. Thanks again. Until next time.