C.L Stevenson also agreed with this theory of Emotivism, however Stevenson focussed on the emotive meaning of words as he believed that moral judgements were not only expressions of attitude based on one’s belief, but also a need of influencing others in what they thought was right and wrong. This argument shows that when scholars claim that ethical statements are no more than expressions of opinion, the reason for expressing their views is not only a vent on approval and disapproval. It is also a result of personal experiences or fundamental beliefs, which is trying to influence others’ attitudes. This can be supported by Ayer’s view saying ‘ethical terms do not serve only to express feelings. They are calculated to arouse feelings and so to stimulate action’ Ayer’s thoughts suggest that ethical statements could not be verified because it is an opinion based on an individual’s experience and how they want others to agree and follow.
Secondly, Prescriptivism is a non-cognitive theory that sees moral judgements as a type of prescription or imperative. This claims that ethical statements are no more than expressions of opinion; instead they are expressing one’s will and desires rather than statements that can be verified. Prescriptivists, such as Hare believed that ethical statements were prescriptive i.e. expressing a command rather than describing a statement like Ayer and Stevenson believed. Hare also said that prescriptivism is superior compared to the other existing theories because prescriptive statements are universalizable. For example ‘you ought not to steal’ means that ‘you ought not to steal and neither will I’, so everybody should follow and apply that statement in the same or similar situation. Essentially prescriptivists are writing a law which has a universal quality that should be applied to everyone. Therefore, some scholars claim that moral statements such as ‘good’, ‘ought’, or ‘right’ have a universalizable and prescriptive element within the ethical statement. Although they are no more than expressions of opinion, prescriptivists argue that their views promote principles that everyone should follow in applicable conditions. According to Hare: ‘I have been maintaining that the meaning of the word 'ought' and other moral words is such that a person who uses them commits himself thereby to a universal rule.’ This means that when an individual uses moral words, such as ‘ought’, they have committed themselves to a universal rule whereby they are setting laws for themselves in order for people to follow.
Both Emotivism and Prescriptivism agree that ethical statements are not just expressions of opinion as these theories believe that statements cannot be verified. However, Emotivism differs from Prescriptivism, as it does not express their views on how to live a moral life, but simply to understand the meaning behind ethical statements. On the other hand, Prescriptivists are not just expressing their views either; they are also prescribing them to others. From this perspective Hare argues that Prescriptivism is superior to all cognitive and non-cognitive theories. He believes that whilst all other theories are trying to differentiate between whether statements can be proved true or false, Prescriptivism is unique in a sense in that it is helping others to understand and follow their moral opinions, rather than stating their approval or disapproval. Nevertheless, words such as ‘good’ have descriptive and prescriptive value in order to set standards. For example ‘stealing is wrong’ is an opinion from an Emotivist’s point of view, which incurs a descriptive meaning. Conversely, ‘you ought not to steal’ is a prescriptive point of view. ‘Steal’ is in both examples but it is in two different contexts: descriptive and prescriptive. The significance of this example shows that words that command and describe interlink with each other. Another example is the prescriptive statement ‘you ought not to murder’ implies ‘boo to murder’ in the Boo/Hurrah theory.
Overall, scholars who believe that ethical statements are no more than expressions of opinion are non-cognitivist. Non-cognitive theories such as Emotivism and Prescriptivism support the claim that moral statements are based on subjective views, which cannot be verified as having factual content. Emotivists accept that moral judgements are dependent on one’s attitudes, background and emotions, whereas Preciptivists regard ethical statements to have a universal quality as well as expressing an opinion. Moreover, in concurrence with Emotivists, Hare agreed that statements were subjective because moral truth and knowledge did not exist behind them. To conclude, when scholars say that ethical statements are no more than expressions of opinion, non-cognitvists believe that opinions and views have not got the ability to validate whether it is true or false. They are merely positive or negative of a matter or prescribing wishes or desire unto other people.
How far do you consider these views to be justified?
Emotivists would justify these views as it allows everyone’s opinions to be equally valid and taken into account, which promotes freedom of action amongst them. Furthermore these views have forced philosophers to consider and study the meaning of ethical statements in a deeper manner. This has, without a doubt, justified the principles of which the Emotive theory is based upon, as it has raised fundamental questions with regards of normative systems of morality.
However, intuitionist critics such as Moore, oppose to Emotivist views on ethical statements, as he believes that statements can be verified through intuition. Moore claimed that ‘good’ is indefinable whereas Emotivists disagree because they believe that ‘good’ is descriptive. To some extent Moore’s view on ‘good’ (being indefinable) is stronger that Ayer’s view as he believes that one cannot use a non-moral premise to determined a moral conclusion. In other words ‘good is good, and that is the end of the matter …it cannot be defined’-Moore.
Furthermore, some philosophers consider Emotivism to be an unjustified theory because emotive statements have the intention to stimulate others to act in similar ways. It is arguable that this theory is not justified as it serves no real purpose as it is just one’s opinions, which others do not need to take account for. In addition, it is questionable that one’s intention to stimulate others may be for the wrong reasons; therefore offering a solution that may not be good for others to follow makes this view unjustified. On the other hand Ross offers a solution during conflict and clearly differentiates between the right and good thing to do. This is more reliable to some extent because Ross supports his solutions with examples and logical evidence. On the contrary, it is arguable that the accuracy of Intuitionism is not very reliable as Moore fails to prove or demonstrates his theory for knowing truths by using our intuition.
The strengths of prescriptivism are the universal principles available to people. To some degree, these views are justified as it provides common rules for people to follow. The universalizabilty also encourages people to follow one’s wishes or desires, because the prescriptive quality benefits not only the individual, but others around them. In addition, people expect their moral statements to have some influence on others.
However, Ethical Naturalism would argue that ethical statements are more reliable, as it provides a modern and scientific outlook on ethics, rather than expressing universal prescriptions that aren’t truth claims. Some philosophers argue that there isn’t a valid reason for following one’s judgment as everyone’s’ preferences are different. This raises questions as to how an individual would know whether their morals were right or wrong and what they would consider to be ethically true or false. Furthermore, by analyzing Ethical naturalism, some philosophers believe that ethical statements are more reliable. This may be because evidence can be provided to support the claims made, whereas prescriptive statements cannot be proven by methods such as science. Therefore, some may be lead to believe that prescriptivism is a less credible theory and consequently not justified.
In conclusion, some philosophers consider that is difficult to justify the opinion made towards Emotivist and Prescriptivist principles, as they cannot be applied to everyone due to the fact that everyone has different inclinations. However, one could argue that the reliability of the Ethical Naturalist theory is just as weak, as people have different views which are similar to the non-cognitive theories. It is less credible as these subjective statements may not be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ due to the same reason as explained above. To conclude, an individual’s beliefs on these theories may be justified even though each theory has their own strengths and weaknesses. Nonetheless, it can be argued that the advantages of Emotivism and Prescriptivism outweigh the weaknesses. For that reason, these views can be justified as it raises fundamental questions about the morality, which in the end justifies the principles of which the theories are based.
