14th October, 2015.
If we accept the view that moral knowledge exists then we have to show what things are moral and what things are not moral. Since there is no evidence that declares what things are moral and what things are not moral, it is very hard to determine the good and bad in an action. Since there is no moral knowledge, our moral judgements are just meaningless and hold no truth or falsity. This means that we cannot say that a claim such as ‘killing an innocent is wrong’ is true. If we do not have any moral knowledge then why we question the morality of the actions and make judgements on what’s right and what’s wrong? In my essay I will explain Emotivism and subjectivism and the confusion created by these. I will also present an argument about how it A.J. Ayer’s argument in Emotivism avoids Moore’s argument. In A.J. Ayer’s theory of Emotivism, he gives the modified version of Verification Principle and in my essay I will try to accomplish how using this modified version of verification principle. We can set our standards for the moral knowledge. A.J. Ayer, responded to the argument of moral knowledge with his theory of Emotivism. In his theory, A.J. Ayer states that ethical judgments are merely expressions of emotion. Moral judgements do not hold any truth or falsity except the ones that can be verified empirically. For the purpose of verification, statements can be verified under the verification principle. Subjectivism is the idea that an