Is emotivism, as moral philosophy, flawed or deficient?

Answer 1

Let's start with what emotivism says, so we can contrast it with what it DOESN'T say:

Emotivism asserts that ALL ethical statements made by people are in fact statements of personal preference, and not statements of truth in any way. If someone says, "killing is wrong", they are NOT saying that there is some vague universal ethic that makes killing bad, they are simply saying that they don't like it when killing occurs.

One advantage of this view is that it completely cuts away a lot of ethical baggage. You cannot build a tool to measure ethics, and an emotivist would say that is because there is nothing there to measure. Another advantage is that it seems largely to be borne out in speech. A lot of people DO seem to have emotional content when they make ethical statements (visit a PETA website if you doubt that).

On the other hand, while ethical statements have emotional content, it doesn't always seem to be the entirety of the content. If people really thought of ethics as just a preference, argument about it would be near-universally seen as nearly pointless, just as people don't argue about favourite ice cream flavours. Yet arguments do occur, and people do try and persuade others which suggests there is at least a hint of reason mixed in with the emotion.

Likewise, emotivism says nothing about WHY people might have one ethical preference over another. It seems instead more concerned with writing off these reactions as inherently meaningless than determining where the reactions come from (even if emotional reactions are all they are!).

So, in short, although emotivism seems to have some explaining power, it doesn't have anywhere near enough to be broadly accepted as a valid moral philosophy. I suspect, like many systems, that it will be found to be part of a more complex answer - that SOME ethical situations are emotivist, but not ALL.

Hope that helps!

Answer 2

If it's a philosophy based on emotion (subjective opinion, feelings, beliefs) then yes it would be flawed & deficient. So would a philosophy based entirely on logic. One must balance the other. Morality is so complex, how does one determine what is right & wrong? It's a combination of what's legal (certain laws that society as a whole abide by & are punished accordingly when they ignore), what's logical (or seems so to the majority) & what's true emotionally for the individual. Anything, as an absolute or extreme, will have flaws. The key is balance.

Answer 3

Well, it is logically coherent, and makes perfectly sound sense so it isn't flawed or deficient. However whether or not it is right is another matter.

Answer 4

Well, morals is an easier topic to speak about than type about, here are some strong examples of morals...

http://youtube.com/profile_videos?user=irishdictator

Answer 5

I would have to say Deficient. It leaves you wanting more.

Answer 6

Deficient in what manner? This question is deficient. Please be more precise if you truly seek wisdom.