The “Boo / Hurrah theory”, is a less intellectual name for Emotivism. In essence it is a way of successfully describing the theory. It is a very simple theory which demonstrates the idea. When shown a picture of an image, a person will have a gut feeling about the image of which he or she had just seen. As such they will reply to the image with either, boo or hurrah. This shows a moral judgement which has expressed my opinion and feelings. However, it is spontaneous, which illustrates the lack of reason within my opinion. This represents how statements are not nessacerilly meaningful, however the statement is just an opinion subjective to the speaker. For example if I say that “Sport is good” it is my personal exclamation, not a truth claim, therefore it is “hurrah to sport”. This is a simpler way of explaining the theory, but to analyse Emotivism to its core the beliefs of the philosophers must be discussed.
The first philosopher was A. J Ayer who introduced Emotivism. He believed that there were two types of moral statement. The first was synthetic statements which can be tested by sense experience. Examples of these statements are ones which involve our sense perceptions such as touch, taste smell etc. The other moral statements are analytic statements. These statements are ones which do not need any factual knowledge or reason to prove their truth. An example is 1+1 = 2. The name Emotivism was derived from Ayer, so in theory you could argue his theories are the most reliable and his arguments are the most solid.
The Philosopher David Hume has a contribution to Emotivism. The idea of verification revolves around his influence. He believed that when we make a moral decision we do it out of sentiments. This is due to the feelings that we have. We all have different levels of compassion which influences the decisions we make. Regardless of this, there is no relation to reason when considering moral statements. This leads to the fact that the decisions we make are in the spare of the moment, without any consideration of the consequences and outcomes, there is no reason only our emotions telling us that something is right. However the philosopher Stevenson would disagree.
Stevenson argued that a moral judgement contains either an expression of an attitude based on a belief or a persuasive element which seeks to influence others. He maintains that a moral disagreement tells us more about the peoples beliefs, rather than a “boo / hurrah” shouting match. Moral disagreements are not really disagreements at all. For example if two travellers are trying to reach a destination, and disagree about the route, the principle is decided on and agreed but the best course of action was disrupted. The other ingredient in a moral statement is the intention to influence the feelings of approval and disapproval of others. If I say that my teacher is the best, then I am trying to influence people to my point of view and hopefully adopt it. Stevenson gives meaning to moral disagreement whereas; Ayer’s view was simply that they were shouting matches.
Emotivism is followed by many philosophers; despite their varying views on the subject it has meaning to them in different ways. However why do people adopt Emotivism?
The Philosopher “Thomson” sees two reasons why people adopt Emotivism. The first is that they are lead to it by Moral right. Ayer is an example of a philosopher who has been led to Emotivism by the epistemological arguments for Moral Scepticism because of his Principle of verification, he is moved to adopt the No-Truth-Value thesis and hence Moral Scepticism. Emotivism then is Ayer’s way of explaining the phenomena of moral language. The second reason why people adopt Emotivism is an argument that Thomson attributes to David Hume. Since she has already argued against the epistemological arguments for Moral Scepticism, she discusses the second reason. Hume believed that the statements we make are just exclamations through sentiment, although it may be meaningless, it provides the speaker with the security that they are doing the right thing, and as such bringing them closer to being a virtuous person.
Another response to Emotivism is that of James Rachel’s, who criticised the emotive theory. He states that reason is always a factor, and as such disagrees with Ayer. He says that Ayer is wrong to draw parallels with the “ouch” reaction from stubbing your toe, and the “that’s wrong” reaction to moral statement. He maintains that there is a lot more to a moral statement then simply a feeling. He believes that moral judgement relies on reason. For example, if you say euthanasia is wrong requires reason otherwise it is an arbitrary statement.
In conclusion, Emotivism is a theory where moral judgements are used to express our emotions. Many philosophers feel differently about why we make moral statements, and in essence a statement is not meaningful, unless it can be verified by our sense perceptions. By analysing the views and opinions of the philosophers, a sound and concise evaluation has been produced.