QUIZ 4 REVIEWERS

Part 2: The Act (Lesson 1: Feelings and Moral Decision-Making)

Feelings and Moral Decision-Making
There are at least two theories in ethics that give focus on the role of feelings on
morality:
Metaethical Theories- analyze what makes the actions good. (emotions)
1.Ethical Subjectivism
2.Emotivism
Feelings as Instinctive Response to Moral Dilemmas
 Some ethicists believe that ethics is also a matter of emotion. They hold that moral
judgments at their best should also be emotional. Feelings are seen as also necessary
in the judgment as they are even deemed by some as instinctive and trained response
to moral dilemmas.
 Reason and emotion are not really opposites. Both abstract inference and emotional
institutions or instincts are seen as having relative roles in ethical thinking.
 Feelings or emotions are said to be judgments about the accomplishment of one’s
goals. Emotions, it is thus concluded, can be rational in being based at least sometimes
on good judgments about how well a circumstance or agent accomplishes appropriate
objectives.
 Feelings are also visceral or instinctual by providing motivations to act morally.
Moral sentiments highlight the need for morality to be based also on sympathy for
other people. Many ethicists conclude that being good involves both thinking and
feeling.
Feeling based theories in Ethics:
 Ethical Subjectivism: This theory basically utterly runs contrary to the principle that
there is objectively in morality. Fundamentally a meta-ethical theory, Ethical
Subjectivism is not about what things are good and what things are bad, It also does not
tell how we should live or what moral norms we should practice. Instead, it is a theory
about the nature of moral judgments.
 Ethical Subjectivism holds that the truth or falsity of ethical propositions is
dependent on the feelings, attitudes, or standards of a person or group of persons.
Contrary to the belief that morality is about objective facts, this theory states that moral
judgments simply describe our personal feelings.
 For every controversial topic, a third stance might say that people in the first two
groups are expressing their respective opinion, but where morality is concerned, there
are no objective facts and no position is objectively right.
This third stance represents Ethical Subjectivism. It submits that our moral opinions are
based on our feelings and nothing more.
 The theory therefore proposes that when we say that something is morally good, this
just means that we approve of that thing. Hence, the statement “X is moral” and all its
variants, simply mean “I like X” or “approve of X”/ Similarly, when we state that
something is morally bad this means, in the theory, that we disapprove of or do not like
that thing, nothing more.
Analyzing Ethical Subjectivism
 The theory has plenty of problems. It indicates, unbelievably, that the mere fact that
we like something would make it good.
 This also implies that each of us is infallible so long as we are honestly expressing
our respective feelings about moral issues.
 Furthermore, Subjectivism cannot account for the fact of disagreement in Ethics.
Suppose John believes that hazing is wrong while Peter maintains it is good. Certainly,
they have disagreement. In Subjectivism, however, there is no disagreement between
them- both of them are correct provided that they are sincere in their feeling and beliefs.
Finally, the theory could also have dangerous implications in moral education. When
the theory is faithfully subscribed to, children would be taught, to simply follow their likes
and dislikes. Deficient in providing us any guide on how to develop sensible and proper
feelings, the theory, in effect, tells us to simply follow our personal feeling and emotions.
 Emotivism: One way to look at Emotivism is to view it as an improved version of
Subjectivism. Considered by its proponents as far more subtle and sophisticated than
Subjectivism, Emotivism is deemed invulnerable to many objections. This theory that
was developed chiefly by the American philosopher Charles L. Stevenson (1909-1979)
has been one of the most influential theories of Ethics in the 20th Century.
 The theory basically states that moral judgments express positive or negative
feelings. “X is right” merely means “Hooray for X”- and “X is immoral” just means “Boo
on X!” Since ethical judgments are essentially commands and exclamations, they are
not true or false; so there cannot be moral truths and moral judgments.
 Emotivism is actually the most popular form of non-cognitivism, the meta-ethical
theory that claims that ethical sentences do not convey authentic propositions. Moral
judgments according to Emotivism, are not statements of fact but are mere expressions
of the emotions of the speaker, especially since they are usually feelings-based.
In denying moral truths and moral knowledge, some emotivists base their stance on
logical positivism, which claims that any legitimate truth claim must be empirically
verifiable. It is held that since moral judgments cannot be tested by sense experience,
they cannot be authentic truth claims but can only express feelings.
To understand how the theory views moral judgments, it would help to note that
language is used in a variety of ways.
 Language can be used to state facts or what we believe to be facts:
 Ex: “Marcos was a president of the Philippines”, “Gasoline costs Php 50 per litter”,
and “Jose Rizal is the author Noli Me Tangere”
 In each case, we are saying something that is either true or false, and the purpose of
utterance is typically, to convey information to the listener.
 Language may be used to utter statements that are neither true or false, statements
that are not actually statements but are commands. Its purpose is not to convey
information but to get one to do something
 Ex: “Close the door”, “Go to sleep”, and “Read your notes.”
 In giving a command, you are not being altered in your beliefs; instead you are being
influenced by conduct.
 Aside from commands, the following utterances are also not statements of fact:
 “Hurrah for Marcos!”; “Boo on the price of gasoline!”; and “Alright Jose Rizal!”
 None of these can be true or false- it would make no sense to say: “It is true that
hurrah for Marcos” or “It is false that boo on the price of gasoline.” Note that these
sentences are not used to state facts. Instead, they are used to express the speaker’s
attitudes.
 Now, we also need to note the difference between reporting an attitude between
reporting an attitude and expressing the same attitude.
 If I say “I like Marcos,” I am reporting the fact that I have a positive attitude toward
him. The statement is a statement of fact, which is either true or false.
 On the other hand, if I shout “Hurrah for Marcos!” I am not stating any sort of fact, not
even a fact about my attitudes. I am rather expressing an attitude, but no reporting that I
have it. With these points in mind, let us turn our attention to ethical sentences.
 According to Emotivism, utterances in ethics are not fact-stating sentences, that is,
they are not used to convey information.
 Emotivism claims that they have two entirely different purposes:
1. First, they are used as a means of influencing other’s behavior.
2. Second, moral-sentences are used to express (not report) the speaker’s attitude.
So there lies the difference between Emotivism and Subjectivism
Subjectivism interprets ethical sentences as statements of fact, particularly as reports
of the speaker’s attitudes.
Emotivism on the other hand, denies that the utterance does not state any fact at all,
even a fact about him.
 Evaluating Emotivism: It is barely sensible to base a moral theory on logical
positivism as this view has been abandoned and rejected by philosophers. For one
thing, logical positivism is self-refuting as the view is not itself verifiable by sense
experience and thus would not be a genuine truth claim on its own grounds. It is thus
unsurprising that
Emotivism, too is prone to serious criticism.
 Emotivism provides morality with insufficient explanations. In denying moral truths
and moral knowledge, it seems to dilute what morality is instead of elucidating it. It is
also unclear how the ethical “good” can be reasonably reducible to mere exclamation.

Ethical Subjectivism- both can be true or right

Emotivism- None of this is true or false, right or wrong