Pamantasan ng Cabuyao

College of Education, Arts, and Sciences

Katapatan Homes Subd. Brgy. Banay-banay, City of Cabuyao

INTRODUCTION

⦿ There are at least two theories in ethics that give focus on the role of feelings.
⦿ Abstract inference and emotional intuitions or instincts are seen as having relative roles in ethical
thinking.
⦿ Ethical judgments are highly emotional as people emotionally express their strong approval or
disapproval of different acts.
⦿ Ethical subjectivism basically runs contrary to the principle that there is objectivity in morality.
⦿ 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.
⦿ Emotivism claims that ethical sentences do not convey authentic propositions.
⦿ Emotivism teaches those moral judgments are not statements of facts but are mere expressions of the
emotions of the speaker especially since they are usually feelings-based.
⦿ Logical positivism claims that any legitimate truth claim must be empirically verifiable.
⦿ Feelings or emotions involved in moral thinking should be anchored on careful consideration of a full
range of right goals, including altruistic ones.

Feelings as Instinctive Response to Moral Dilemmas

Some ethicists believe that ethics is also a matter of emotion. They hold that moral judgment at its best
should also be emotional. Feelings are seen as also necessary in ethical judgment as they are even
deemed by some as instinctive and trained responses to moral dilemmas.

Some hold that reason and emotion are not really opposites. Both abstract inference and emotional
intuitions or instincts are seen as having relative roles in ethical thinking. For one thing, 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.

In this lesson, we will tackle how feelings as instinctive responses to moral dilemmas can serve as
obstacles to making the right decisions. And to balance our treatment on feelings, we will also discuss how
feelings and emotions are trained responses to situations that may help in taking ethical decisions.

Feelings as Obstacles in Making the Right Decision

Feelings and emotions, however, can become obstacles to becoming ethical. This is the
case especially when feelings’ roles in ethics are misinterpreted or exaggerated. So as a way of
providing this, let us discuss the two famous (but erroneous) feeling-based theories in ethics.
1. Ethical Subjectivism

It 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.

Although it admits that moral judgments are ‘truth

bearers’, Ethical Subjectivism holds that the truth and falsity of ethical propositions are 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, say homosexuality or abortion, we usually hear at least two
opposing views concerning the matter. One camp which declares that the action is immoral may
express its standby by saying that God hates it, that is unethical, or that the doers of the action
must be punished by the government. On the other hand, the rival group may claim that the action
is perfectly normal, and practitioners must be tolerated, if not respected. But there is a third stance-
another group 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.

In Ethical Subjectivism, it is a fact that some people are homosexual, and some are
heterosexual, but it is not a fact that one is good and the other, bad. So, when someone says that
homosexuality is wrong, he is, according to the theory, not stating facts about homosexuality but
merely saying something about his feelings toward it. Subjectivists hold that there is no such thing
as objective right or real wrong.

2. Analyzing Ethical Subjectivism

Ethical subjectivism suggests that we are to identify our moral principles by simply following
our feelings. On a positive note, it allows us to think for ourselves because it implies that we need
to agree with culture and society. Ethically, it makes sense for a theory not to ultimately base
morality on what society feels or dictates.

But subjectivism has plenty of problems. It indicates, unbelievably, that the mere fact that
we like something would make it good. So just imagine how the theory would assess acts like
taking prohibited drugs, getting intoxicated and bullying others if some persons do like them.
Moreover, the theory provides a weak foundation for dealing with topics like slavery, racism, and
discrimination. In subjectivism, these things would be good only if we like them.

Notice too, Ethical Subjectivism also implies that each of us is infallible so long as we are
honestly expressing our respective feelings about moral issues. On the contrary, though, it is a fact
that we are sometimes wrong in our moral evaluation, so much so that we do want to change our
judgments upon discovering that we are mistaken. So, against subjectivism, we may submit this
argument:” If Ethical Subjectivism is correct, then each of us is infallible in our moral judgments if
we are speaking sincerely. But we are not infallible- we may be mistaken, even when we are
speaking sincerely. Therefore, Ethical Subjectivism cannot be correct.

Furthermore, Subjectivism cannot account for the fact of disagreement in ethics. Suppose
John believes that hazing is wrong while Peter maintains that it is good. Certainly, they have
disagreements. In Subjectivism, however, there is no disagreement between them- both are
correct provided that they are sincere in their feeling and beliefs. That is, John could not disagree
that “Peter believes that hazing is good”. Conversely, Peter could not disagree that “John believes
that hazing is wrong”. Subjectivism entails that each should acknowledge the truth of what the
other is saying.

Finally, the theory could also have dangerous implications for 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 guidance on how to develop sensible and proper feelings, the theory,
in effect, tells us to simply follow our personal feelings and emotions.

3. 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 which was developed chiefly by the
American philosopher Charles L. Stevenson 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 knowledge.

Emotivism is 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 expressions of the emotions of the speaker,
especially since they are usually feeling-based.

To understand how the theory views moral judgments, it would help to note that language
is used in a variety of ways. Principally, language is used to state facts or what we believe to be
facts. Thus, we may say, “Marcos was president of the Philippines,” “Gasoline costs Php 50 per
liter,” and “Jose Rizal is the author of Noli Me Tangere.” In each case, we are saying something
that is either true or false, and the purpose of our utterance is, typically, to convey information to
the listener.

But there are other purposes for which language may be used. Suppose one says, “Close
the door!” This utterance is neither true nor false. It is not a statement of any kind but a command.
Its purpose is not to convey information but to get one to do something. In giving you a command,
I am not trying to alter your beliefs; instead, I’m trying to influence your conduct.

Aside from commands, the following utterances are also not statements of fact: “Hurrah
for Marcos”; ”Boo on the price of gasoline!”; and “Alright Pepe!” None of these can be true or false-
it would make no sense to say that, “It is true to say 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.

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.

First, they are used as a means of influencing other’s behavior. If someone says “Stealing
is immoral,” Emotivism interprets it as an attempt to stop you from doing the act. Thus, the
utterance is more like a command- it is equivalent to saying, “Don’t do that!”

Second, moral sentences are used to express (not report) the speaker’s attitude.
Accordingly, saying “Fair play is good” is not like saying “I approve of fair play”, but it is like
saying “Hurrah for fair play!”

So there lies the difference between Emotivism and Subjectivism. Subjectivism interprets
ethical sentences as statements of fact, particularly as reports of the speaker’s attitude. In
Subjectivism, when John says “Hazing is immoral,” this is the same as “I (John) disapprove of
hazing”. It is therefore seen as a statement of fact about John’s attitude, which could be true or
false.

Emotivism on the other hand, denies that John’s utterance states any fact at all, even a
fact about him. Instead, John’s utterance is viewed as equivalent to something such as (1)”
Hazing—yech!” and (2) “Do not participate in hazing.

Evaluating Emotivism

In effect, Emotivism suggests that in ethical disputes, we cannot appeal to reason but only
to emotion. Without a doubt, this could bring about anarchy. The theory could encourage
propaganda wars in which all parties involved, not minding resorting to reason, would simply to
manipulate the feelings or emotions of the opponents. Emotivism is thus against our basic
knowledge that it is favorable if opposing groups would instead judiciously deliberate about their
ethical differences and resort to reasons to resolve them.

Emotivism fails to distinguish moral judgment from mere expressions of personal

preference. For an utterance to become a genuine moral or value judgment, it must be supported
by pertinent reasons.
 hat is, if someone tells us that a certain action is immoral, we may ask why it is so, and if
there is no reasonable answer, we may discard the proposition as absurd.

This spells the difference between moral judgments from mere expressions of
personal preference. If after eating someone says, “I like sweet cake”, he is not required to support
it with good reasons. For that is a statement about his personal taste and nothing more. But in the
case of moral judgments, they require backing by reasons. In the absence of sensible rationale,
they are merely capricious and ignorable.

Having logical positivist background, Emotivism discards moral truths. Maintaining that
moral claims are not testable by empirical observation and experimentation, the theory reduced
morality to mere matters of feelings. Emotivism fails to notice that humans have not only feelings
but also the reason, and reason plays a vital role in ethics. In fact, moral truths are truths of
reason, that is, a moral judgment is true if it is espoused by better reasons than the alternatives.

Feelings Can Help in Making the Right Decisions

Our discussion on Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism should not be construed, however,
as completely removing people’s feelings, tastes, emotions, likings, and the like in the sphere of
morality. Admittedly, there are situations in which our feelings and likings are relevant to the
rightness of our decisions and actions. In selecting a course to take, a job to assume, and
especially a person to marry, we wonder how one’s decision can be right without at least
considering our feeling, taste, and preference.

Moreover, ethics-without-feeling also appears to go against Christian philosophy’s

emphasis on love, for love is basically a strong liking, desire, or emotion. Applied religiously,
excluding feelings in moral living seems to go against the biblical decree to worship and serve
God with a joyful heart or feeling.

Experientially, our moral compasses are also strongly influenced by the fleeting forces of
disgust fondness or fear. Indeed, subjective feelings sometimes matter when deciding right and
wrong. Emotions, like our love for our friends and family, are a crucial part of what gives life
meaning, and ought to play a guiding role in morality. Sometimes, cold, impartial, rational thinking
is not the only proper way to make an ethical decision.

Nonetheless, the feelings or emotions involved in moral thinking should be anchored on

careful consideration of a full range of right goals, including altruistic ones. This consideration
ought to mesh with an emotional instinctive reaction that provides a motivation to act ethically
and correct injustices.