Emotivists would justify these views as it agrees to everyone’s judgements to be equally suitable and taken into account, which endorses freedom of action between them. Emotivism will not tell someone how to live a moral life, but simply helps us understand moral statements: as action guiding and as conveying certain attitudes. Furthermore these views have enforced philosophers to take into account and study the importance of ethical statements in a more in-depth approach. This has, without hesitation, justified the ideology of which the emotive theory is centred upon.
However, Moore, an intuitionist reviewer, disagrees with emotivist views on ethical statements, as he considers that statements can be confirmed through intuition. Moore stated that we cannot use our senses to tell whether something it good, because he asserted that “good” is indefinable, but he said we can use our “moral intuition” and so we can still say whether a moral statement is true or false. Although, emotivists argue this because they believe that ‘good’ is descriptive. Moore said ‘good is good, and that is the end of the matter …it cannot be defined’ and therefore to some degree Moore’s view on ‘good’ (being indefinable) is more influential than Ayer’s view as he considers that one cannot use a non-moral premise to decide an ethical conclusion. In addition, emotive statements have the aim to motivate other to act in similar ways this is because some philosophers believe Emotivism to be an unjustified theory. It is debatable that this theory is not justified, as it provides no real principle, as it is just one’s judgment, which others do not need to take account for. Moreover, it is open to discussion that one’s aim to inspire others may be for the incorrect reasons; consequently providing a solution that may not be good for others to follow makes this view unjustified. Alternatively Ross, another intuitionist, puts forward an explanation during disagreement and clearly distinguishes between the correct and good thing to do. This is more consistent to some degree because Ross sustains his solutions with examples and coherent evidence. In contrast, it is debatable that the precision of Intuitionism is not very dependable as Moore fails to verify or demonstrate his theory for significant truths by using our intuition.
In conclusion, some philosophers believe that is complex to validate the opinion made towards Emotivist and Prescriptivist principles, as they cannot be applied to everyone due to the information that everyone has different preferences. However, one could argue that the dependability of the Ethical Naturalist theory is just as weak, as individuals have dissimilar views, which are alike to the non-cognitive theories. It is less reliable as these subjective statements may not be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ due to the similar reason as explained above. To conclude, a person’s belief on these theories may be justified although each theory has their own strengths and weaknesses. Nonetheless, it can be disputed that the advantages of Emotivism and Prescriptivism overshadow the weaknesses. For that reason, these views can be justified as it brings up fundamental questions about the ethics, which in the end justifies the principles of which the theories are centred upon.
