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

The script to this video is part of... - The Philosophy Vibe - "Metaethics" eBook, available on Amazon: US: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QNK8ZC UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088QNK8ZC Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088QNK8ZC India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088QNK8ZC Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088QNK8ZC Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088QNK8ZC - The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 3 'Ethics and Political Philosophy' available worldwide on Amazon: US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H9V22R UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H9V22R Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H9V22R

U lot are acc helping me pattern my Philosophy A level lool big up

this is honestly so helpful for my ethics exam today, I was stressing so much about this topic but I feel like I finally understand it now!, thank you!!

These videos are amazing, it’s like a delicacy for my brain, keep up the great work guys 💯🙌🏼

Just hopped over here after your metaethics video and I am amused by the consistency of comparing emotivist positions to condiment opinions lol also thank you for the great content :)

This is well discussed! You helped me with my reporting, you deserve a subscription.

It ended just as it was getting spicy...agh! More please?

The whiskey voice makes this much better

How interesting is it, I can't even stop watching it.

I think Kant justifies emotivism well. Regardless, It seems to me still people are just expressing their desires. It is just really strong desires. If evolution were a little different, it might be normal for women to kill and eat males after copulation and men would still wait in line for the opportunity.

Counterarguments 1. "Moral statements have no truth value" is metaethical statement, therefore it does not influence ethical theories and we can not derive from it that we have no reason to act in moral way 2. Principle has no obligation to pass it's own criterias

Omg, almost fed up to understand what Emotivism why it is not correct line of thought, but i gave a final try, jus this ine video on Emotivsim then I'll move on...... Banggg this video helped me alot thanks ❤

Could you guys do video on moral nihilism, moral relativism/cultural relativism, and moral absolutism ?

I think that moral claims ultimately are expressing ones emotions. I think religion has been so influential with moral claims, because most of them claim that stealing, murder, lying is morally wrong. In addition, murder appears to be so intuitively wrong that people cannot accept that morals are simply expressions of emotion.

Is there a philosophy that states that morality is indeed subjective and dependent on individual goal oriented systems. A system that has a goal to advance humanity naturally would prescribe crimes against humanity as wrong? A system that has a goal to upheld certain religious beliefs could endorse behaviour that would be seen as a crime in a system that stands for advancement of humanity.

Lol! I am imagining someone who says, "I dislike tomato ketchup" in the same degree as they say "murder is wrong". Like, damn. That's some hatred for tomato sauce. Seriously though, so what if morality is just expressions of emotions? some emotions are stronger than others, it doesn't mean the strongest emotions justify a belief in moral properties of objects in reality.

I'm starting to get it, but I'm still so confused 😕

So many objects on the shelf look like they're about to fall off...Please move that coffee machine

I agreed with emotivism the most. We can’t prove moral statements. That fact that factual moral statements would be useful to a society doesn’t affect the truth of the matter.

I love you guys

I disagree with the last point. To me non-cognitivism is highlighting how much our moralities are a matter of integrity at their core. That when we argue moral positions, at the core of it all we are appealing to a shared human condition to some extent. I disapprove of murder but if someone else is okay with murder, neither of us are necessarily less logical than the other in our positions. If the other person can not only get away with murdering someone without punishment or deterrent of any kind but also personally benefit from it somehow and just deep down are incapable of caring about that person being able to live, he's perfectly logically consistent with himself... he just doesn't give a shit. It doesn't matter how logical my arguments are, he just doesn't feel the same way I do. If I do sway this person then they necessarily did care deep down and either didn't realize it then, or ended up rationalizing it somehow in spite of genuine negative feelings they had for murdering that person.

Also the government laws are not built on people's feelings, but absolute morals.

Amazing voice acting

Not liking the consequence of a theory is not an argument against it.

Regarding the verification principle: Analytical and synthetical statements are meaningful in the sense that they are true. There are more ways to be meaningful. For example: A good Joke is not necessarily true, but funny. It is meaningful in the sense that it brings joy to people. Another way of being meaningful and at times even untrue is to comfort somebody. Truth is a kind of value, not the only one. The sentence should read „a Statement can only be true or false, if it is an analytic statement or a synthetic statement.“ But this is really just saying „a statement can only be true or false, if we have in principle a way of verifying the truthvalue“, which is a little odd. Are there no truths we are in principle never capable of knowing? We wouldn‘t know, right? Either the Statement is odd or my mood...cheers

fantastic

How would non-cognitivists respond to the Frege-Geach problem?

wait, why the verification principle fails? can you not state that A meaningful statement is defined as a statement that is analitycal or sythetical? in this case, the verification principle would be an Analytical statement?

Emotivism might fail at its own criteria, but it does still follow rules of logic and is difficult to falsify - does this not count for anything?

Viewing this the night before my exam hoping for the best lmfao

You say that moral statements express beliefs, but isn't that cognitivism? Beliefs are truth-apt, feelings are not. According to emotivism, moral statements don't "describe" anything; they merely express (emotions).

Behave in such a way that gives you the best, most enduring emotion. Ethics are half rational self-interest, and half emotional self-interest (empathy, ability to vicariously model others’ emotions, and justice, a relative feeling of balance and health in one’s conception of himself and the world). I have to say I agree with this emotivist model of ethics!

"I see"

Ayer sounds fun.

Once it became clear that morality would not be defined, I began losing interest. I firmly accept objective moral truth because I have a definition of morality that allows for it. For me, morality is an assessment of effect on the well being of sentient creatures; especially humans. If one accepts that definition, then there are many obvious moral truths which are objective. This is my perspective for a variety of reasons, but perhaps most crucial is that I don't know what subjective morality even is. I don't find it a coherent concept. I think this is why these discussions often characterize it as simply a feeling or opinion. Those things are certainly subjective, but I don't have any clue how they relate to morality. To illustrate this; consider the part of this video where the discussion suggests that murder or stealing is simply an opinion. [side note; I always find it confusing when these discussions use the term murder. Murder is definitionally wrong. Killing & murder are *not* synonymous. Murder is defined as the *wrongful* killing of someone.] If killing someone is not in conflict with their well being....then I must exist in a different universe. Furthermore; it is quantifiable & demonstrable. These are not qualities of subjective things, but those of objective things. Therefore I conclude that killing someone is immoral. The objection might arise that there are situations where killing is a moral good. I agree!! I'm only providing a simple example, not suggesting that situational ethics cannot have countless variables which affect the final assessment. So even though one could argue that killing someone is morally neutral in general, I'd say that it is in specific. But perhaps one day someone will provide me with a coherent definition of morality that allows for it to be subjective.

Emotivism is just too narrow and bare-bone, one-dimensional, to fully explain morals. Purpose and context have to be considered as well. Purpose, for example: to avoid chaos and produce a functioning society with minimal suffering to propagate the species, etc. Context: as it relates to the purpose. There is technically an infinite amount of possible realities, but a very select few make sense and would actually work. Saying that a moral statement such as "murder is wrong" is meaningless ignores both purpose and context, and renders emotivism irrelevant and disconnected from any working, non-chaotic reality. Explaining morals with emotivism alone is like calling a brick wall a house.

see, this is why I don't like non-cognitivism in the slightest. because it is not rooted in logic or in reason, it's rooted in emotion, which is something really all humans have a very small understanding of! If we cannot understand what our morality is even based off of, then how can we even begin to understand our own moral views? as a human, I want to have reason and logic behind my actions. Maybe that sets me apart from other humans, but part of being human is being able to rationalize. The capability of rational thought is what sets us apart from the beasts, and as such I value that ability a lot.

Is logical positivism necessarily a part of non-cognitivism? Wouldn't logical positivism reject that "1 + 1 = 2 is true", because that's a priori and not synthetic? I don't believe there's any right/wrong or true/false to our "moral" claims, but I'm not sure if that makes me a non-cognitivist. I think I disagree with logical positivsm and some other criticism of non-cognitivism.. I'm not sure lol.

Are you doing both voices? 😂😂😂

I am curious to know why philosophers did not consider lying as a source of such confusions. If we assume that ethics are already written in the minds of people, then it follows that when two people differ on a statement like 'stealing is wrong' one of them is simply lying. He knows that nobody should steal and that stealing is not good, but is still lying. This is desire.

I get the feeling the philosophers are tying themselves in knots. One says something and others come forward to disprove it. Ultimately, there is not much that every one conveniently agrees on. In its attempt to disprove and eliminate morality philosophical thoughts have just added to confusion and intellectual theories that really don't answer life's problems.

I feel like in some cases emotivism can be right, I see it as a spectrum. For example, murder is seen as universally wrong but then there are things that are more social and complicated like someone adding u to a group of friends because they felt bad for you. To one added it could have been seen as selfish because they did it only because they felt bad, therefore wrong. The one who added the person felt as if was wrong to not add them, and did not see it as selfish but self less as if they were doing it for the other person, therefore thought of it as right. I think in these types of very complicated social situations this can apply but in very large but simple situations like theft, murder, etc it can not apply.

This completely misses the negative consequences of certain behaviours. If we know that something causes pain and distress/ hardship etc to others in the majority of cases and it is linked to/ due to said action then we can verify that the action/ behaviour is morally wrong

I think disagreements prove nothing. There’s disagreements in maths and science. Doesn’t mean there isn’t a truth