THE HUMAN ACT: (Feelings-
Emotivism)
EMOTIVISM (Stevenson and Ayer)
The English philosopher A.J. Ayer (1910 –
1989) and the American philosopher Charles
Stevenson (1908 – 1979) developed a
different version of
subjectivism. Emotivism is a theory that
claims that moral language or judgments: 1)
are neither true or false; 2) express our
emotions; and 3) try to influence others to
agree with us.
Charles Stevenson and A.J. Ayer were
philosophers who popularized the idea that
ethical statements were ways of expressing
emotional attitudes. Ayer and Stephenson
believed that a big difference exists between
scientific statements like “The earth is
round.” and ethical statements such as
“Shoplifting is wrong.” They argued that
scientific statements were essentially about
the parts of the world (or universe) people
could detect with their five senses.
Statements about the shape of the earth can
be shown to be true or false simply by
observing it.
For Stevenson, the meaning of a sign is a
complex dispositional property.
Consequently, since the sentences of a
language have distinguishable kinds of
dispositions, they have distinguishable kinds
of meaning.
But statements about ethics can’t be shown
to be true in the same way. It’s difficult to
imagine what anyone could see or hear
about the world that would show that
shoplifting is wrong. It’s even more difficult
to imagine what anyone can see or hear
about the world that would show that
shoplifting is wrong when it’s done in order
to feed your family (and the shopkeeper is
an evil man who killed your father).
Sometimes people think about this difficulty
and simply throw up their hands, saying that
the lack of proof shows that there’s no such
thing as ethics!
But Stephenson and Ayer saw a different
way out. They suggested that despite ethical
statements’ resemblance to statements of
fact in the English language, they really
function quite differently. Instead of stating
facts, Ayer and Stephenson thought they
expressed emotions. So according to the
emotivist, saying “Shoplifting is wrong.” is
a lot like shaking your fist at shoplifting.
Similarly, saying “Donating to charity is
right.” is a lot like applauding for people
who contribute to those who are less
fortunate than themselves.
 than pure subjectivism allows, and this is
included in Emotivism:

When an Emotivist says lying is bad they're

giving the instruction "don't tell lies", while
an Emotivist who says lying is good is
giving the instruction "do tell lies" - and we
can see that there is a clear disagreement
between them.

For Stevenson, the meaning of a sign is a

complex dispositional property.
Consequently, since the sentences of a
language have distinguishable kinds of
dispositions, they have distinguishable kinds
of meaning.

Assertion is the action (fact or belief) of

stating something or exercising authority
confidently and forcefully.
Emotivism versus Subjectivism
This version of emotivism gets round one of
subjectivism's biggest problems.
Consider this example:
When one subjectivist says lying is bad,
they're giving the information that they
disapprove of lying. If another subjectivist
says lying is good, they're giving the
information that they approve of lying.
Emotivism
Emotivists claim that statements about good
and evil are just expressing a subject's
approval or disapproval of a particular thing.
To say that “Charity is good” is really to
say, “I approve of charity” or just “Yay,
charity!” To say that “stealing is wrong” I
just have to say, “I disapprove of stealing”
or “Boo, stealing!” This explanation has
earned emotivism the nickname “The Boo-
Yay Theory of Ethics.”

Since, according to the subjectivist view,

both are reporting their own personal
feelings, there isn't anything that they
disagree about.

But since people do sincerely disagree about

moral issues, there must be more going on
Emotivists believe that moral language
expresses emotions and tries to influence
others; it has no cognitive content. If I say
homosexuality is evil, I’m just expressing
my feeling that homosexuality is disgusting!
I am expressing my emotions and, at the
same time, trying to influence you to dislike
homosexuality. The same analysis applies to
any moral judgment. If I say that capital
punishment is wrong, I’m just expressing
my dislike for it and trying to get you to
agree with me. I might as well have said
capital punishment while shaking my head
and rolling my eyes.  And if I say that Stalin
or Cheney were bad men—which they were
—I’m merely trying to get you to agree with
what I’m really saying.
Ayer thought that moral language was
meaningless because it couldn’t be verified.
If I say that there’s a dollar on my desk, you
know what I mean, and you can verify or
falsify my statement—you just go look. But
if I say that lying is bad, how you could
verify this? Where would you go to see that
lying was bad? Ayer argued that statements
that couldn’t be verified were meaningless.
There is no meaning to propositions like
abortion is immoral because there is no way
to show these statements are true or false.
While Stevenson granted that moral
language didn’t have factual or cognitive
content, he argued that it had emotive
meaning. Moral propositions aren’t true or
false, but they aren’t meaningless either—
moral language allows us to
express emotions. Thus, he could easily
account for our differences regarding ethics
—we have different emotions. And when we
disagree, Stevenson said we have a
disagreement in attitude. But reasons or
arguments will not change other people’s
attitudes.
Advantages:
1. Accounts for the variety of beliefs.
Stephenson - an expression how how we
want to see the world. Disagreements arise
when fundamental principles clash. Morality
isn't confined to the realm of objectivism - it
is ultimately dependent on the beliefs of the
individual
2. Overcomes the challenges of verifiability
that intuitionism faces - is based on personal
beliefs, and so doesn't need an abstract
concept like intuition to be proved to be
meaningful
3. Reflects our lives - when we say
statements, we are trying to persuade others
to act in that way (Ayer) because its how we
want the world to be (Stephenson)
Disadvantages
1. Challenge to debate - ethical debate is
rendered as meaningless. How can two
people debate opposing ideas? They have no
ultimate standard to compare to, no
ACTUAL goodness. It is not like two
individuals comparing means to fulfil an
intuited good; the debate is limited to 'I
believe this' and 'you believe that’
2. Reduces the importance of ethical terms -
if goodness is an expression of personal
feelings (boos or hurrahs) then it would
seem that my dislike for say, abortion, is on
the same level to my dislike of stubbing my
toe (Rachels). There is no hierarchy for
discussion, which undermines the serious
ethical debates that have occurred
throughout civilization e.g. Hiroshima. They
aren't subjectivism (Ayer) and so convey
absolutely no truth. Therefore, they could be
rendered meaningless

3. No unanimous decision can be made if

ethical terms are dependent on the
individual's view. It is all internalised and
not externally testable (like Naturalism),
therefore meaning that a widely agreed
decision will never be made
Bad points of Emotivism
4. Is it even a theory? It just tells us that we
can respond to terms with our opinion. Emotivism says that moral statements just
Intuitionism accepts this, but says that express our feelings of Emotivism has
goodness is an external standard. Vardy become unpopular with philosophers
argues that emotivism is "nothing but hot because the theory that led the Emotivists to
air". think that moral statements
were meaningless has fallen from favor.

Less technically, if expressing moral

judgements is really no more than
expressing one's personal opinion there
doesn't seem any useful basis for arguing
about moral judgements.

In practical terms, Emotivism falls down

because it isn't very satisfying. Even (most)
philosophers think moral statements are
more than just expressions of feeling.

And it's perfectly possible to imagine an

ethical debate in which neither party has an
emotion to express.

Non-philosophers also think there is more to

ethics than just the expression of an attitude
or an attempt to influence behavior. They
want a better explanation and foundation for
shared standards of morality than Emotivism
can provide.

Passion, Emotions, and Sentiment

(Hume)

• The realm of human knowledge was

limited to impressions and ideas, all
other was in the realm of those
things unknowable - and, for us, they
simply don't exist.

• According to Hume's theory of the

mind, the passions (what we today
would call emotions, feelings, and
desires) are impressions rather than
ideas (original, vivid and lively
perceptions that are not copied from
other perceptions).

• Hume argued that the realm of

human knowledge was limited to
impressions and ideas, all other was
in the realm of those things
unknowable - and, for us, they
simply don't exist.

ON MORAL…

• Nothing is good or bad in itself…

even murder:
 • It is impossible “from reason
alone... to distinguish between
moral good and evil.”
• “Reason is and ought to be the
slave of the passions”
• On morality, Hume illucidate’s
that Nothing is good or bad in
itself…even murder: and it is
impossible “from reason alone... to
distinguish between moral good
and evil.”
Foundations of Morality
• “Morality is determined by
sentiment. It defines virtue to be
whatever mental action or quality
gives to a spectator the pleasing
sentiment of approbation; and vice
the contrary.”
• Hume maintains that morality is
determined by sentiment. It
defines virtue to be whatever
mental action or quality gives to a
spectator the pleasing sentiment of
approbation; and vice the
contrary.”
• Sentiment = is an attitude,
thought, or judgment prompted by
feeling
• Approbation = approval
Hume’s Arguments
 Reason cannot tell us what we
value;
 Reason can help us pursue what
we value;
 What we value is based on our
sentiments & passions:
a. We are naturally endowed
with empathy – “fellow
human feelings”;
b. We find virtue beautiful
and vice odious;
c. Morality is based on what
we value.
________________________
______________________
“Morality must be based on
our sentiments & passions”
 “It appears evident that the
ultimate ends of human actions
can never, in any case, be
accounted for by reason, but
recommend themselves entirely to
the sentiments and affections of
mankind without any dependence
on the intellectual faculties.”
 Why do you do this… “because I
want to, I need to”
 Reason alone might override those
“common fellow feelings” and
permit inhuman acts.
 Role of compassion is directly
linked to one’s conscience & to the
ability to feel disgust at vice and
approbation towards virtue; with
reason alone, “men become totally
indifferent toward these
distinctions.”
MORAL SENTIMENT
 • Approval (approbation) is a pleasure,  Moral agent: the person who
and disapproval (disapprobation) a performs an action
pain or uneasiness.
 Receiver: the person affected by that
• (Stanford Encyclopedia of action
Philosophy)
 Spectator: the person observing the
• “The moral sentiments are types of action and its consequences and who
pleasure and uneasiness that are approves or disapproves of the
associated with the passions of agent’s actions.
pride and humility, love and
 “…if you as the agent give food to
hatred: when we feel moral
a starving person, then the
approval for another, we tend to
receiver will experience an
love or esteem her, and when we
immediately agreeable feeling
approve a trait of our own, we are
from your act. Also, the receiver
proud of it.”
may see the usefulness of your food
Sympathy donation, insofar as eating food
will improve his health. When
• Sympathy can be evoked by the considering the usefulness of your
outward expression of another which food donation, then, the receiver
conveys their passions to us, will receive another agreeable
through an association with our own feeling from your act. Finally, I, as
passions, we come to identify their a spectator, observe these
feelings with our own. agreeable feelings that the receiver
• Sympathy can also be evoked experiences. I, then, will
through an observation of outward sympathetically experience
causes of our own passions and agreeable feelings along with the
associating them with another via the receiver. These sympathetic
inference that what causes us to feelings of pleasure constitute my
suffer would also cause another to moral approval of the original act
suffer: “…if we contemplate the of charity that you, the agent,
instruments laid out for another's perform. By sympathetically
surgery, even someone unknown to experiencing this pleasure, I
us, they evoke ideas in us of fear and thereby pronounce your
pain.” motivating character trait to be a
virtue….”
Sympathy and Moral Judgments
Trolley Problems
Three Players:
The Trolley Problem: A Classic
Philosophical Dilemma
Version 1:
“A runaway streetcar is hurtling
towards five unsuspecting workers. Do you
pull a switch to divert the trolley onto
another track, where only one man works
alone? Or do you do nothing?”
Philippa Foot in 1967 at Oxford University
first proposed the test scenario. ...
The Trolley Problem: A Classic
Philosophical Dilemma
Version 2:
…. “In the “footbridge” scenario (also
known as “fat man”), the streetcar is heading
towards five workers, but this time you’re
on a footbridge over the track. Standing
precariously close to the edge of the bridge
next to you is a very large man, who, if he
happened to topple onto the track below,
could stop the trolley before it reaches the
five. Do you push him?”
Judith Thomson, a philosopher at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
coined the term “trolley problem” and
created what would become its second most
famous variant, the “footbridge”
HUME AND 21ST CENTURY
NEUROBIOLOGY:
1. The answers people gave correlated
with how emotionally engaged they
felt with the dilemma.
a. The decision to pull the switch;
while
b. the decision not to push the fat
man…
a. The decision to pull the switch was
related to activity in the prefrontal cortex
(associated with cool, conscious
deliberation), while
b. the decision not to push the fat man
involved areas like the amygdala, associated
with strong emotional reactivity.
Flaws/Problems
1. Inequality of Sympathy.
2. Failure to account for unsympathetic
behavior.
3. Hume argued that “a false relish may be
corrected by argument and reflection” i.e.
“some education by way of instruction
and/or experience must occur in order to
develop the natural sympathies” (Enquiry,
178)
1. Inequality of Sympathy
a. Our capacity to associate with the
suffering of others is governed and
perhaps limited at least in part by our
own experiences;
b. Just as different people feel different
levels of suffering so too would different
people feel different levels of sympathy;
c. Some people seem to be easier to
sympathize with than others – this is
driven by how well we can associate
ourselves with them; and
d. If the circumstances are too alien or the
people too different, we could be ignorant
of their suffering entirely.
2. Failure to account for unsympathetic
behavior:
a. What if people whose sentiments are 1. Stop and think
not stirred by the suffering or joy of
others? 2. Clarify goals

b. What if those people whose feelings of 3. Determine facts

pleasure are given rise by another’s 4. Develop options
suffering?
5. Consider consequences
3. Hume argued that “a false relish may
be corrected by argument and reflection” 6. Choose:
i.e. “some education by way of instruction
7. Monitor and modify
and/or experience must occur in order to
develop the natural sympathies” Making ethical choices requires the ability
(Enquiry, 178) to make distinctions between competing
options. Here are seven steps to help you
a. Can mean people be corrected by
make better decisions:
education?
1. Stop and think: This provides
b. How can Hume distinguish between
several benefits. It prevents rash
proper and false relish without reference
decisions, prepares us for more
to some concept of objective truth?
thoughtful discernment, and can
Emotivism seems to be reflective of allow us to mobilize our discipline.
human nature, but is limited in that it
2. Clarify goals: Before you choose,
merely tells us about that - rather than
clarify your short-term and long-term
what 'good' is. It seems to define goodness
aims. Determine which of your many
as arbitrary, meaning that it has no value
wants and "don't wants" affected by
in ethical debates. It is incompatible with
the decision are the most important.
religious beliefs too, as well as meaning
The big danger is that decisions that
that no decision can be made
fullfill immediate wants and needs
unanimously. By reducing the importance
can prevent the achievement of our
of ethical terms, it seemingly cancels out
more important life goals.
the advantages of accounting for a variety
of beliefs - this, anyway, is an expected 3. Determine facts: Be sure you have
aspect of human nature and is not useful adequate information to support an
in complex ethical decisions and indeed intelligent choice. To determine the
undermines them. facts, first resolve what you know,
then what you need to know. Be
THE HUMAN ACT: DECISION
prepared for additional information
MAKING
and to verify assumptions and other
7-Step Moral Reasoning Model uncertain information. In addition:
Consider the reliability and credibility of the
people providing the facts.
Consider the basis of the supposed facts. If
the person giving you the information says
he or she personally heard or saw
something, evaluate that person in terms of
honesty, accuracy, and memory.
4. Develop options: Once you know
what you want to achieve and have
made your best judgment as to the
relevant facts, make a list of actions
you can take to accomplish your
goals. If it's an especially important
decision, talk to someone you trust
so you can broaden your perspective
and think of new choices. If you can
think of only one or two choices,
you're probably not thinking hard
enough.
5. Consider consequences: Filter your
choices to determine if any of your
options will violate any core ethical
values, and then eliminate any
unethical options. Identify who will
be affected by the decision and how
the decision is likely to affect them.
6. Choose: Make a decision. If the
choice is not immediately clear, try:
Talking to people whose judgment you
respect.
Think of a person of strong character that
you know or know of, and ask your self
what they would do in your situation.
If everyone found out about your decision,
would you be proud and comfortable?
Follow the Golden Rule: treat others the
way you want to be treated, and keep your
promises.
7. Monitor and modify: Ethical decision-
makers monitor the effects of their choices.
If they are not producing the intended
results, or are causing additional unintended
and undesirable results, they re-assess the
situation and make new decisions.
The Process
Ethical decision-making refers to the
process of evaluating and choosing among
alternatives in a manner consistent with
ethical principles. In making ethical
decisions, it is necessary to perceive and
eliminate unethical options and select the
best ethical alternative.
The process of making ethical decisions
requires:
• Commitment
• Consciousness
• Competency
• The process of making ethical
decisions requires:
• Commitment: The desire to do the
right thing regardless of the cost
• Consciousness: The awareness to
act consistently and apply moral
convictions to daily behavior
• Competency: The ability to collect
and evaluate information, develop
alternatives, and foresee potential
consequences and risks
The Process
Good decisions are both ethical and
effective:
• Ethical decisions
• Effective decisions
Things to ASK yourself when making
ethical decisions
• Does your decision conflict with any
of the Six Pillars of Character/Core
Ethical Values?
• Think of someone whose moral
judgment you respect. What would
that person do?
• How will your decision affect
others?
• Ask yourself: Are my actions legal?
• Are there regulations, rules, or
policies that restrict your choices/
actions?
• Would your decision be perceived as
unethical?
Before making a difficult decision,
consider asking yourself the following
questions to see if you are on ethical
thin ice.
Things to ASK yourself when making
ethical decisions
• How would your decision look if it
were reported on the news or in
another public forum?
• What would a reasonable person do?
How would they perceive your
decision?
• Would you be proud of your choice
if your child were to find out? Would
you want them to make the same
choice?
• Could you rationally and honestly
defend your decision?
• Will you sleep soundly tonight?
Obstacles in Making Ethical Decisions
Common rationalizations that can cloud our
judgment when we are involved in making
tough ethical decisions.
• If it's necessary, it's ethical.
• The false necessity trap.
• If it's legal and permissible, it's
proper
• Common rationalizations that can
cloud our judgment when we are
involved in making tough ethical
decisions.
• If it's necessary, it's ethical: This
approach often leads to ends-justify-
the-means reasoning and treating
non-ethical tasks or goals as moral
imperatives.
• The false necessity trap: "Necessity
is an interpretation and not a fact."
We tend to fall into the "false
 necessity trap" because we
overestimate the cost of doing the
right thing and underestimate the
cost of failing to do so.
• If it's legal and permissible, it's
proper: This substitutes legal
requirements for personal moral
judgement. This alternative does not
embrace the full range of ethical
obligations, especially for those
involved in upholding the public
trust. Ethical people often choose to
do less than what is maximally
allowable but more than what is
minimally acceptable.
Obstacles in Making Ethical Decisions
• It's just part of the job.
• I'm just fighting fire with fire.
• It doesn't hurt anyone.
• It's for a good cause.
• I was just doing it for you.
• It's just part of the job:
Obstacles in Making Ethical Decisions
Conscientious people who want to
do their jobs well often
compartmentalize ethics into two
categories: private and job-related.
Fundamentally decent people may
often feel justified doing things at
work that they know to be wrong in
other contexts.
• I'm just fighting fire with fire: This
is the false assumption that promise-
breaking, lying, and other kinds of
misconduct are justified if they are
routinely engaged in by those with
whom you are dealing. This rationale
compromises your own integrity.
• It doesn't hurt anyone: This
rationalization is used to excuse
misconduct when violating ethical
principles so long as no clear and
immediate harm is perceived. It
treats ethical obligations as simply
factors to be considered in decision-
making rather than as ground rules.
• It's for a good cause: This is a
seductive rationale that loosens
interpretations of deception,
concealment, conflicts of interest,
favoritism, and violations of
established rules and procedures.
• I was just doing it for you: This
rationalization pits values of honesty
and respect against the value of
caring and overestimates other
people's desire to be "protected"
from the truth. This is the primary
justification for committing "little
white lies."
• I've got it coming.
• I can still be objective.
• Everyone's doing it.
• It's OK if I don't gain personally.
• I've got it coming: People who feel
overworked and/or underpaid
rationalize that minor "perks"
(acceptance of favors, discounts,
gratuities, abuse of sick leave,
overtime, personal use of office
 supplies) are nothing more than fair
compensation for services rendered.
• I can still be objective: This
rationalization ignores the fact that a
loss of objectivity always prevents
perception of the loss of objectivity.
It also underestimates the subtle
ways in which gratitude, friendship,
anticipation of future favors and the
like affect judgement.
• Everyone's doing it: This is a false
"safety in numbers" rationale that
often confuses cultural,
organizational, or occupational
behaviors and customs as ethical
norms.
• It's OK if I don't gain personally:
This justifies improper conduct for
others or for institutional purposes.
THE HUMAN ACT: MORAL
COURAGE
Developing the “WILL”
The following are some tips or suggestions
on how to develop will and moral courage
(Mañebog, 2013):
1. Develop and practice self-
discipline.
2. Do mental strength training.
• The following are some examples.
Some of them are not necessarily
ethically related:
- Don’t open the internet for a day or two.
- Drink water or juice, in spite of your desire
to have a beer or liquor.
- Avoid chatting with your gossipy friend.
- For a week, go to sleep one hour earlier
than usual.
- Resist the desire to gamble or smoke.
3. Draw inspiration from people of great
courage.
1. Develop and practice self-discipline.
One way to develop moral courage and will
is to develop and practice self-discipline.
The concept self-discipline involves the
rejection of instant gratification in favor of
something better. Ethically applied, it may
refer to the giving up of instant pleasure and
satisfaction for a higher and better goal such
as executing a good rational moral decision.
Developing will and moral courage involves
developing self-control. It includes nurturing
the ability to stick to actions, thoughts, and
behavior, which lead to moral improvement
and success. It encompasses endowing the
inner strength to focus all the energy on a
moral goal and persevere until it is
accomplished.
2. Do mental strength training.
This method is never reserved for a few
special people. One of the most simple and
effective methods under this mental strength
training involves declining to satisfy
unimportant and unnecessary desires.
 
Everybody is normally confronted and
tempted by an endless stream of cravings
and temptations, many of which are not
actually important or desirable. By
practicing to refuse to gratify every one of
them, a person gets courageous and stronger.
Saying no to useless, harmful or
unnecessary desires and deeds, and behaving
contrary to one’s (bad) habits, fortify and
refine a person’s mindset. By persistent
practice, one’s inner power grows, in the
same way working out one’s muscles at a
gym increases one’s physical strength. In
both cases, when a person needs inner power
or physical strength, they are available at
his/her disposal.
Trainings like these add to the storehouse of
one’s inner strength. By following a
methodical method of training, a person can
reach far, have more control over oneself
and one’s life, realize ethical goals, improve
his/her life, and achieve satisfaction and
peace of mind.
3. Draw inspiration from people of great
courage.
People usually admire and respect
courageous persons who have won great
success by manifesting self-discipline and
will power. These include people in all
walks of life, who with sheer will power and
moral courage, overcame difficulties and
hardships, have improved their moral life,
advanced on the spiritual or moral path, and
became worthy of imitation.
History is filled with outstanding examples
of moral courage whom we rightly
celebrate: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Mahatma Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, and
especially Jesus Christ and His apostles.
When we see individuals put their comfort,
safety, security, reputation, or even life on
the line for a cause they believe in, or for an
ideal that matters more than personal
wellbeing, we witness moral courage and
will in action.
4. Repeatedly do acts that exhibit moral
courage and will.
• Practice makes perfect. If one wishes
to nurture the moral courage and will
in him, he must strive doing the acts
that manifest them whenever
opportunity allows it. The following
are some examples (“Moral
Courage,” n.d.):
• helping someone push a car (e.g. out
of a snow bank) or assist someone in
need of crossing the road even if it
means being late
• standing up to a bully on the
playground
• picking up litter
• doing homework or chores without
being reminded
• refusing to listen to or repeat gossip
• wash the dishes or clean the house
even if it’s not been told
• practicing what you preach, even
when no-one is looking or knows
• turning in a toy or a wallet to the
Lost and Found
 • (for teens) calling home for a ride • being inconsistent or capricious with
from a party where alcohol is being rules and standards for one’s
served children

• (for teachers) giving all students an • choosing sides after seeing which
equal voice regardless of race, way the wind is blowing
socioeconomic status, religion,
gender or sexual orientation • breaking a promise

• becoming company whistle blower • lying or cheating

risking job loss, financial cost, and or
legal repercussion

• reporting a crime

• participating in a peaceful protest

5. Avoid deeds that show lack of moral

courage and will.

• This involves evading acts that show

irresponsibility, cowardice, apathy,
rashness, imprudence, ill will, and
wickedness. Here are some examples
(“Moral Courage,” n.d.):

• walking away from someone in need

• taking more than your fair share

• laughing at someone's misfortune or

accident

• grabbing the spotlight from someone

who has earned it

• placing too much reliance on the

letter rather than the spirit of the law

• remaining silent in the face of

wrong-doing or injustice

• rationalizations or justifications for

action/lack of action