in an ethical sense is emotivism philosophically invalid? people have always tried to think of situations/actions from an objective point of view but this proves very difficult, or even unsatisfactory. what are your thoughts?
To simply reduce ethics to people trying to objectively judge actions is a problem with emotivism.
The core of an ethical theory is it’s “Theory of the Good”. Before we can decide which actions are ethically permissible, we have to assess what we consider to be “of value”.
For example, consider Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism does not simply say “The action which produces the most happiness is the most ethical action.” The actual doctrine would be “If you agree that happiness is x, y, and z, and you also agree that happiness is what is of true value, then the ethically proper action is the one in which the most happiness is produced.”
It is always easier to analyze ethical doctrine if you view it as an If Then… statement, not as a simple declaration of equivalence.
As for emotivism/non-cognitivism itself, I would state the following objections…
(1) Some E/N-C’ers say that because “good” is an unobservable and secondary property, it is illusory and not actually instantiated as a component of the world. I would disagree with this. “Intent” is a secondary and unobservable quality of an action, and yet nobody would argue that “intent” is not a component of action.
(2)E/N-C claims that most people, when they make ethical judgements, are simply speaking out of our emotion, not of any objective truth. This I would agree with. However, they then extend that assumption to all possible discussion of ethics, which is simply unfounded.
(3)E/N-C states that our ethical judgements are based on our feelings. Even granting this assumption, it is not neccesarily implied that there is no objective truth to ethics.
Imagine you are dating someone. You state that “I feel so loved when you speak to me!” This is a statement of how you feel. The truth of whether or not the person you are dating actually loves you can never be known to you beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is always possible that you are being decieved.
However, just because you speak of them loving you based on feeling, this does not imply that there is no objective truth. While you may only speak on feeling, the fact of the matter is that at any given moment, you either are or are not loved by the other person. What you say is true or false, regardless of whether or not you are able to know the truth or falsity of the statement.
Since you ask, I think you should use capitol letters.
JJ
Since you ask, I think you should use capitol letters.
JJ
obviously the funny man