Intuitionism Versus Emotivism - Essay Example

Intuitionism Versus Emotivism In discussing Meta-ethics, which can be described as the attempt to discuss what makes issues moral or ethical at all in the first place, as opposed to normative ethics, which attempts to discuss concrete examples of morality, two main theories which can be viewed as being in opposition to each other are Intuitionism and Emotivism. Intuitionism is an older theory which has its roots in the works of Plato, while Emotivism is a newer theory which developed in part as a response to Intuitionism. While neither theory is perfect, Emotivism has fewer flaws in general. To begin with, the ‘naturalistic fallacy’ needs to be discussed. In an equation such as (1+1=2), it is implied that this can be understood as (2=2). If we understand (F=good), then whatever F happens to be, it also must be understood as good, or (F=F) and (good=good). Considering (good=good), we can see that this statement has no real meaning. It has no real meaning because there is no information to be gained from this statement. We gain no insights into what the essence of good is. Therefore, philosophers such as Moore have stated that it is not possible to get facts from simply taking into consideration values with only logic. Because of this, Moore states that non-natural facts must be relied upon to gain insight into the essence of good. Moore wishes to make distinction with the term good, which conversely would also make a similar distinction about the term bad as well, as they are a binary opposition. He states that good is radically different from other terms, that it should not be considered to be desire or physical pleasure. He also states that he does not believe it to be meaningless, as he does not think that so many, many people would use the term if it were meaningless. After stating the ways in which he felt the term good to be different, he then posited for ‘objectivism,’ the idea that truth exists, is out there somewhere, and it simply needs to be discerned through non-natural facts. Intuitionism is the resultant theory. It basically states that we cannot rely upon empirical evidence, and that we must rely upon ‘non-natural facts’ to intuit what the truth of the matter is in regards to goodness. However, there is one obvious flaw to this theory. What are we to do if two different people intuit the intrinsic value of goodness differently? How can we discern which person is correct and which person is incorrect? In response to this, Moore would only have been able to say that the situation needed to be re-examined more closely. This is the essence of meta-ethics, as it in no way attempts to actually make any ethical judgments. This is not a very strong argument. It is possible for two different people to come to the same conclusion about the intrinsic value of goodness. The fact that two people on their own agreeing doesn’t prove the theory. In the same line of thought, two people disagreeing on the intrinsic value of goodness doesn’t on its own disprove the theory as well. However, we need to look at the larger picture of the situation. Taking information from two people cannot really be used to develop a strong theory. What we must look at he how very different people’s perceptions of goodness can be on a large scale. We can also take into consideration how different cultures are going to have conceptions of goodness that are completely in opposition to what other cultures would consider to be good. In other words, what one culture might consider to be good, another culture might consider it to be bad. Now, would Moore simply state that one culture simply needed to re-examine what it considered to be good? It is a rather Euro-centric tendency to consider one culture to be ethically superior to another for the simple fact that it is different from another culture. Once we have the state of mind that there is only one correct way to consider the intrinsic value of goodness of an ethical issue, it then allows us to devalue other people’s views on the matter. The entirety of Intuitionism allows for very unethical treatments of people in real world situations. The crusades wouldn’t have happened if people had been respectful of another cultures right to determine goodness in ethical situations. The Spanish Inquisition wouldn’t have happened as well, and the colonization of the Americas, Africa, and India wouldn’t have also involved the native people of those lands being forced into monotheism and Western modes of thought simply because their modes of thought and beliefs did not match with those of the colonizers. To deal with the problems of Intuitionism, Emotivism was developed as a theory. First Positivism must be mentioned. Positivism is the attempt to break situations and issues into either analytic or synthetic modes. Analytic investigations depend solely upon reason, and synthetic investigations depend upon empirical evidence. Emotivism states that ethics is not an issue that can be analyzed through analytic or synthetic investigations; ethics is used to express propositions which assert attitudes and emotions. In this sense Emotivism is subjective. In this sense we state that ethics is used to express something about the speaker of an ethical statement. When a person states that ‘x is good,’ what is actually meant is that the person making the statement approves of ‘x.’ Stevenson holds that statements about good have a different quality than statements about concretes such as objects. In Emotivism, the idea is that some words are used to express qualities about concrete objects while other words are needed to discuss non-concrete terms in order to express attitudes and emotions. Of course, when we leave ethics in a completely subjective field, we are then unable to make definite statements about certain acts and certain issues. If we are to consider that ethics are a matter of subjective assertions in various cultures, this is to say that a culture is able to justify a horrendous act such as genocide, the caste system in India, torture and other unacceptable ‘interrogation techniques,’ the treatment of women in Islamic countries, slavery, human sacrifice, infanticide, or any of the acts mentioned previously. Actually, Emotivism can be used as a justification for the acts mentioned previously, because if in one culture it is acceptable to justify the subjugation of another culture, who is anyone to respond to these issues? However, one thing that in part can answer these questions is to say that this is a reductive way to consider view cultures. Just as we had to consider the wider picture of people not agreeing upon what is the value of goodness in Intuitionism, so do we have to consider a more person to person basis of the values of people in a culture. By turning on practically any channel on a television, we can see various people in a culture arguing about how certain situations are inherently ethically good or bad. Under these circumstances, we need to realize that there might be as many people in an Islamic country that disagree with the treatment of women in the country as agree, but it must be taken into consideration that it is the people who consider the treatment of women to be ethical who are in power. It must also be noted that in no way does a certain group being in power justify all of their actions. We can consider how countries and individuals who are in charge in a country can be tried for war crimes in a world view. Considering the globalization that has taken place due to various technologies, we can consider ethics to not just be a matter of individual cultures. We can then state that some issues can be considered to have a more objective reality behind them, such as the unethical nature of genocide, and then other issues are to be left to be considered on a culture to culture basis, such as perhaps the slaughtering of animals in a religious ceremony. However, we still run into the problem of how to determine which issues we are to be considered to be the subject of a world-wide ethical stance and which issues to consider on a culture to culture basis, because there are a lot of issues between genocide and various small, almost inconsequential ethical issues, and it would basically seem arbitrary to simply draw a line somewhere and label on side ‘unethical’ and the other side ‘subject to a culture’s or individual’s opinion.’ Still, we are left with a better alternative and a more solid basis than we are with Intuitionism in general. Read More