Non-cognitivism: Emotivism And Prescriptivism

•    Moral statements, according to non-cognitivists, have no substantial truth conditions.

 

•    To put it another way, moral language does not express any facts. 

 

•    Morality is neither objectively true nor knowable. Emotivism and Prescriptivism are two popular theories in support of non-cognitivism.

 

•    Moral statements are not truth-apt, according to A.J. Ayer.

•    All moral statements are simply a person's belief, desires, approval, or disapproval. As a result, all moral statements are simply feelings or emotions about a particular situation. 

 

•    So when someone says stealing is wrong, they are simply saying, "I believe/feel stealing is wrong." However, stealing is a meaningless statement that is neither true nor false. 

 

•    The "Boo-Hurrah" theory is another name for emotivism.

 

•    A.J. Ayer was a member of the Logical Positivism school of philosophy. According to logical positivists, a statement is only truth-apt if it is either an analytic or synthetic. The Verification-Principle is the name for this.

 

•    An analytic statement is one that is true solely on the basis of its meaning. 

 

•    An unmarried man is referred to as a Bachelor. By definition, it is correct. To be proven correct or incorrect, a synthetic statement requires empirical evidence.

 

•    Something that can be proven through the use of the five senses. So, if I say there are two dogs by the lane, that's what I'm getting at. You can test whether that statement is true or false empirically.

 

•    Moral statements, according to Ayer, are neither Analytic nor Synthetic. Empirical tests cannot be used to verify moral statements. For instance, if someone says, "Stealing is illegal!" How can we test this hypothesis empirically? We can certainly emphasize the impact of thievery on victims and the emotional harm it causes, but this is not empirical proof that thievery is wrong. 

 

•    It only proves the statement's effect, not that the statement is true. As a result, all moral statements are not truth-apt, i.e., they are neither true nor false; rather, they are meaningless expressions of the speakers' feelings/emotions.

•    If I say, "murder is wrong," I'm not being analytical, and no empirical study can prove it. We can demonstrate that murder causes grief and pain, and that it is frequently committed in a fit of rage. However, we cannot demonstrate that it is incorrect in the same way. 

 

•    According to Ayer, ethical judgments express feelings: "If I say to someone, "You acted wrongly in stealing that money," I'm simply expressing my moral disapproval."

 

•    Moore's open question argument has no effect on emotivism. Any attempt to reduce moral statements to natural statements, according to the open question argument, is a mistake, and morality cannot be defined in natural terms (Naturalistic Fallacy).

 

•    Moral statements are not equivalent to natural statements, according to emotivism, because they are simply a person's feelings with no truth or falsity attached. Moore also claimed that moral statements can still be known through our moral intuition, arguing from a cognitive perspective.

 

•    However, moral intuition, according to Ayer, does not meet the verification principle. As a result, we have no reason to believe it. Emotionalism also explains why we have moral disagreements that never seem to be resolved. How can two people believe they are morally correct while never agreeing on what that means? (Example- Abortion)

 

•    It's because there is no such thing as morally correct; it's just two opposing viewpoints held by two different people. Emotivism also explains why different cultures and time periods have different moral attitudes. For instance, infanticide in Sparta, marriages, and so on.

 

•    Moral statements, according to Charles Stevenson, are deeply held beliefs (Moral Statements= Deeply Held Beliefs). 

 

•    Moral words, according to Charles Stevenson, have emotive meanings. 

 

•    The phrase "You stole that money" has only a descriptive meaning, implying that you took money that did not belong to you without the owner's permission. However, it can be used in an emotive sense (‘you stole that money!'), expressing disapproval. 

 

•    Many moral terms (such as "steal," "honesty," and "respect") have descriptive as well as emotive meanings. However, the central ones, such as ‘right,' ‘wrong,' ‘good,' and ‘bad,' only have emotional connotations.

 

•    We express our approval when we use the terms "good" and "right." The goal of ethics is to influence our behavior. Moral judgments are used to express our feelings as well as to influence the feelings and actions of others. 

 

•    That is exactly what words with emotional meaning do. Caring, approving, and disapproving are all connected to the meaning of ethical words in emotivism.

 

•    However, emotivism appears to oversimplify morality and reduce moral statements to a trivial level. We all know how important moral statements are in shaping one's world and culture. If they are merely expressions of feelings, then saying "Murder is wrong!!!" is equivalent to saying "I don't like Chinese fast food." However, we all know that moral statements are far more important.

 

•    The main problem with logical positivism is that the principle of verification is meaningless in and of itself, according to the principle of verification. 

 

•    The claim that a statement has meaning only if it is analytic or empirically verifiable is not analytic or empirically verifiable.

 

•    However, if the verification principle is meaningless, what it claims cannot be true. As a result, we have no reason to believe that ethical claims are meaningless.

 

•    Hare argued that when someone makes a moral statement, they are not only expressing their beliefs, but also prescribing or recommending a course of action—a way to act! When someone says "Murder is wrong," R.M. Hare says "Murder is wrong." He's saying not only that I dislike or disapprove of murder, but that "no one should ever murder."

 

•    He claimed that the distinction between prescriptivism and emotivism allows reason to play a larger role in moral debate. Prescriptivism functions in the same way that commands, also known as imperatives, do.

 

•    According to Hare, if I say "Eating meat is wrong," I'm really saying "Don't eat meat." When we want to commend something to someone, we use the word 'good,' says Hare. There is a difference in emphasis between ‘good action' and ‘right action': ‘good action' commends the action without commanding it – we are saying it should be praised, but not that you must do it to be a good person. 

 

•    When we say something is the "right action," we are commanding it – it is a behavioral guideline that people should follow.

 

•    Note: Ayer, Stevenson (Emotivism), and Hare (Prescriptivism) all believe that moral statements are non-cognitive, that is, that they are not subject to truth or falsity. There are no objective moral truths, so morality is merely subjective. If we follow this line of reasoning, we will never have a reason to act morally because there is no such thing as morally right or wrong behavior. According to the Non-Cognitivist perspective, genocide, murder, and terrorism are all technically morally permissible. Human beings then have no true codes to live by, follow, or use to shape their behavior.

 

•    The study of people's moral beliefs is known as descriptive ethics.

 

•    It necessitates empirical research. It provides us with a general pattern or way of life of people in various communities. 

 

•    The history and evolution of ethics are studied in descriptive ethics. It keeps track of taboos, customs, and conventions.

 

•    Descriptive ethics looks into people's ethical ideals or the actions that are prohibited in a society.

 

•    Its goal is to learn about people's values, which actions are right and wrong, and which moral agent characteristics are virtuous. Descriptive ethics seeks to explain moral agents' actual choices in practice. 

 

•    It looks into the ethical codes followed by various groups. It is an empirical study of people's moral convictions.

 

•    As the name implies, consequentialism bases morality on the consequences of human actions rather than the actions themselves, emphasizing the rightness of the 'end' rather than the morality of the' means' employed. According to consequentialism, an act's right or wrongness is determined by its consequences, and the more positive consequences produced, the better the act.

 

•    Consequentialism is a group of normative ethical theories that hold that the consequences of one's actions are the ultimate basis for any judgement about the rightness or wrongness of one's actions.

 

•    As a result, a morally right act, from a consequentialist perspective, is one that will result in a good outcome, or consequence.

 

•    Consequentialism is primarily non-prescriptive, which means that the moral worth of an action is determined by its potential consequences rather than by whether or not it adheres to a set of written edicts or laws. 

 

•    One example would be lying under oath under threat of government punishment to save the life of an innocent person, despite the fact that lying under oath is illegal.

 

1.    Moral egoism 

2.    Altruism in an ethical sense 

3.    Utilitarianism is a philosophy that believes in the maximization of utility.