Ayer set out to illustrate that existing meta-ethical theories were meaningless
he says intuition is meaningless as it is not based on any evidence or rational thought
naturalism is meaningless due to his belief in logical positivism and the 'Vienna circle' who created the 'verification principle' which stated that only analytic statements (true in itself) and synthetic statements (not true in itself) are meaningful
he says that meta ethics is meaningless because he says at best ethical langauge is neutral
emotivism
ethical language is no more than just expressions of emotion 'hurrah/boo theory'
our emotional responses are subjective and not universal
ethical langauge is best left to psychology as it can study why an individual felt a way
religious language can still be persuasive because we are expressing that we wish to have that emotion too
1 of 3
C.L. Stevenson
He believes ethical language is dynamic as it has the power to command
he says ethical debate could still be meaningful as peoples subjective a motive use of religious language are often based on objective facts
2 of 3
Challenges and strengths
Challenges
no basic ethical principles ca be established
ethical debate becomes a pointless activity
there can be no universal agreement that some actions are wrong
strengths
emotivism's subjective nature allows all opinions to be equally valid
Emotivism effectively resolves the argument as to why ethical disputes an never be completely resolved
emotivism is right that ethical language, in part, is meant to be persuasive
Comments
No comments have yet been made