Philosophy: AJ Ayer's Expressivism

statements of value

"are not in the literal sense significant but are simply expressions of emotion which can be neither true nor false" - moral sentences ("murder is wrong" "helping others is good" etc. are fundamentally *emotive*)

rejecting subjectivism (moral relativism)

"goodness" is relative to an individual, "X is good for" is "X is approved by an individual" - Ethical terms reduce to natural terms ("approval" is natural - psychology)

2) Ethical terms do not add any factual or descriptive content

"presence of an ethical symbol in a proposition adds nothing to its factual content" - *you acted wrongly* in stealing money does not add any facts or descriptions to the claim that you stole money

What do value (e.g. ethical terms) mean in other contexts?

*Conditionals (i.e. "if... then") and inferential claims* - "Peter did X. If X is wrong, what Peter did is wrong. X is wrong. What Peter did is wrong" = "Peter did X. If X [boo] then what Peter did [boo]. X [boo], therefore what Peter did [boo]" *Other psychological states* - "is X wrong?" - "I believe X is wrong, but I might be incorrect" - "Peter hopes that X is morally good"

problems

- How are moral arguments possible? - Cannot verify Central Claim of theory

unsatisfactory reduction (subjectivism)

- it is not self-contradictory to say that "Person P approves of X, but X is not good" so "X is good" =/= "X is approved by Person P"

4) Ethical utterances are a subset of emotive behavior in general

- non-ethical expressions of gratitude: facial expressions, hand signals, posture, uttering brute sounds, sentences - we think emoting is common/acceptable in other types of human discourse: why not in ethical or moral discourse as well?

Ayer's Objective

- to offer a *naturalistic reduction* of ethical terms/concepts (reduce to nonethical terms), in line with logical positivism (verifiable to have cognitive meaning) - offer a *semantic account* of the ethical terms we employ (e.g. "wrong" "correct) in natural terms - offer an account that *doesn't refer to non-natural entities*, to offer an expressivist interpretation of statements of value

rejecting ethical objectivism (naturalistic versions)

- utilitarian definitions: "good" = "pleasure" - ethical terms reduced to natural terms

Ayer's positive view

1) Ethical terms are *pseudo-concepts* 2) Ethical terms do *not add any factual or descriptive content* 3) Ethical sentences are expressions of how you *feel* about X 4) Ethical utterances are a subset of *emotive* behavior in general

4 main classes in ethical inquiry

1) Propositions which express *definitions* of ethical terms 2) Propositions describing the phenomenon of *moral experience* 3) Exhortations to *moral virtue* 4) Ethical judgments

How are moral arguments possible? Jack: Human sacrifice is wrong, Jill: Human sacrifice is not wrong = Jack: Human sacrifice [boo], Jill: Human sacrifice [yay]. What are they disagreeing about?

Ayer #1: Apparent moral disagreements are disagreements about descriptive and value-free facts (e.g. human sacrifice makes people happy) Ayer #2: Not all disagreements require a contradiction (e.g. Jack: "Let us not sacrifice humans", Jill: "Let us sacrifice humans") - note each of these claims is neither true nor false.

satisfactory reduction

Bachelor = unmarried man - self-contradictory to claim that he's a bachelor but married, so X is a bachelor = X is a married man

Exhortations to moral virtue

Be generous and courageous, Pray 5 times today: not propositions at all but rather commands within moralistic practices

Cannot verify central claim of the theory

Is "All meaningful statements are verifiable" itself a verifiable claim? - Seems not, so we cannot verify the theory (expressivism) and do not have grounds for a belief in the theory itself.

unsatisfactory reduction (for naturalistic)

Good = pleasure - not self-contradictory to say that some pleasant things are not good, so X is good =/= X is pleasure

Propositions describing the phenomena of moral experience

He feels horrible for framing and killing the innocent man: such claims fall within psychology or sociology.

What does logical positivism say about "statements of value"?

Moral and aesthetic statements appear to be cognitively meaningful but are not

Ethical judgments

Murder is wrong, Helping others in need is good: Not definitions, not exhortations. What are these?

although naturalistic, utilitarianism offers

an unsatisfactory reduction

directive statements

command or prescriptions e.g. "shut the door"

3) Ethical sentences are expressions of how you feel about X

consider "stealing is wrong" - "stealing is wrong" = stealing [boo!] - *not a report* about how you feel about stealing (stealing is wrong =/= that is stealing and I disapprove <-- adds factual content) - express feeling with facial expression, gesticulations, posture, brute sounds, audible sentences

Propositions which express definitions of ethical terms

e.g. "the good" refers to "utility", which itself means "the greatest amount of pleasure over pain for the community" - such claims fall within ethical philosophy (Ayer agrees)

emotive statements

expressions of emotion e.g. "Yay Niners!"

1) Ethical terms are pseudo-concepts

fundamental ethical concepts are *unanalyzable*: no criterion by which one can tell the validity of the judgment in which they occur, because they are mere pseudo-concepts - *non-naturalist realist*: ethical terms are "unanalyzable" or indefinable because they are non-natural (spooky) entities - *expressivist*: ethical terms are "unanalyzable" or indefinable because ethical terms are not concepts at all

if a statement is not verifiable

it is not a genuine proposition (i.e. a pseudostatement) & is cognitively meaningless, i.e. neither true nor false - emotive statements and directive statements

logical positivism

only statements that are *analytically* or *empirically* verifiable are propositions that have *any cognitive meaning*

Ayer's strategy

rejecting other metaethical positions (reducto ad absurdum)

empirical

true or false because empirically testable e.g. the u.s. has 18 lakes

analytic

true or false by definition e.g. a bachelor is an unmarried man