Who Followed Emotivism

Ayer was an emotivist and therefore took the non-cognitive approach to meta-ethics. He believed that ethical language is subjective and not objective. He said that ethical statements are merely expressions of liking or disliking a certain action, so if you say that ‘Murder is wrong’, you are simply saying ‘I don’t like murder’. He called this approach the hurrah-boo theory and claimed that any expression of emotion was the same as saying ‘ouch’; it is meaningless. He said that as ethical statements are neither

Allen, shows a great way of learning how to accept people who are different. Allen does show acceptance. On lines 2-4, Allen states, “...held that a person has a right to express disagreement with governmental policies by burning the American Flag.” Allen is saying that anyone is allowed to express their own feelings and opinions. On lines 75-76 Allen also states that “After all, it is in robust debate that we are most true to ourselves.” No matter what everyone is always going to have their own opinions and feelings. Everyone has the right to show discrimination and

In addition to suggesting that eradicating prejudice can cause bigger conflicts among the “purist” and “pluralist”. Rauch also argues when purist campaign against words they are also only targeting the surface of the issue. Everyone who is a minority is a target to this kind of language, even Rauch himself. To appeal to our emotions, once again he tells us about the incident in the train when he believed for a moment that those kids were referring to his as a faggot. This experience made him realized the power of prejudice words. By condemning words as inappropriate, we condemn only those whose say them, once again not prejudice it self, and once again leading to a defeated battle from the start. He referenced the “Dictionary of Cautionary Words and Phrases” from The University of Missouri's journalism department as an example of this battle to caution non politically correct vocabulary. Rauch draws a very valid point here, words are just words, and as long as there bigots and racist will find new words to add more fuel to this

Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one’s own antagonists. A “right” does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort (n.p).

In this paper, I will summarize the article and offer comments about these selected aspects, identify some relevant and irrelevant issues. I will also suggest areas where addition research findings would help in understanding relativism and common moral values in a simplistic and effective

In Brooks’ statement, “many of us are so narrow-minded that we can’t tolerate a few people with ideas significantly different from our own” (Brooks 136), he sounds very passionate about what he is saying. I believe that when a writer becomes emotional about their argument, it is more engaging and gives the reader a reason to be convinced. Brooks begins this fundamental paragraph comparing our wish for diversity to our dream of equality. He says that both of these are “based on ideals we celebrate even as we undermine them daily” (Brooks 135). In this 21st century, one would think that equality exists everywhere, however similarly, women still get paid less than men for the same job, and discrimination by race occurs plenty to this day. The same unawareness occurs with diversity, which we see, but by nature, we prevent it. Brooks continuously tells how terrible the situation is,

-He also talks about how people are afraid to talk about what they actually wanna say, because people are afraid to offend someone. For example when someone says Merry Christmas.

Its power does not lie simply in how others respond to it. If ethical clams were contingent on emotions, they would change as emotions changed. They cannot be universal claims as the emotions of the speakers would vary. Even when moral statements are carried by a weight of public emotion, that does not provide reason for them to be adopted, nor does it make them right. Emotivism effectively prescribes complete freedom of action on the basis that everyone’s opinion is equally valid and everyone is therefore free to do what they choose irrespective of the opinion of others. How can we judge between two people’s moral opinions? What criteria is there - if any – for judging the relative merits of a moral viewpoint. Emotions can unite people in a common moral bond, but can also isolate groups and individuals. The emotional force with which a moral view is expressed is no recommendation of its value.

One statement in particular that stood out to me was: “To yell “black-on-black crime” is to shoot a man and then shame him for bleeding” (111). Statements like these tell you more than simply what happened, but why it happened and how it will impact or result in other events; they give valuable first hand perspective on the oppression of African Americans throughout our history, and the effects it has on their communities. The term “black-on-black crime” is used sporadically in media, depending on the source. I already knew it was not a fair statement to use, and involved problematic wording, but the metaphor used to describe it gave me insight on it’s implications that I could not have discovered on my

In light of the recent events in Charlottesville, where a white supremacist rally turned violent, the argument on whether or not hate speech should be banned has become increasingly more relevant. Those supporting the ban argue that this kind of speech eventually creates a society that doesn’t accept the affected minorities as equals, and can shame them into silence. On the other side, people argue this would infringe upon free speech rights. In Glenn Greenwald’s article, “In Europe, Hate Speech Laws are Being used to Silence Left Wing Beliefs,” he addresses how this ban might affect left-wing activism, and the fallacies in the arguments supporting the ban. Greenwald mainly relies on logos to back up his thesis; that a hate speech ban would not work in America. The problem he faces with this as his argument is that it makes the assumption that these same issues would arise in America. Other than a brief mention of his time as a lawyer to back up one talking point, there is very little ethos. While his tone throughout the article feels very neutral and informative, he makes poor use of logos and ethos, leading to an ineffective argument.

He believes it is not the act of casual laws that prevent our free will but rather constraints or instances were individuals are forced in making a decision they normally would not if an outside force was persuading them in their decision making process. Ayer uses a great example in that if a man points a pistol at your head a demands you to do something and you listen he compelled you to do an act that you would never have done. Other examples include hypnosis or making it physically impossible to do an act. In these situation the man is taking away your free will and often times when events like these happens people will say “I did it against my will” however in reality they where presented with a choice to obey or not. Usually, if the outcome of disobeying is worse than the event being demanded, as many criminals do, the one being commanded decided to obey and therefore was under the illusion they had no other choice. Ayer also states that those with habits that inhibit them to act out are acting under the same compelling pressure as someone with a gun to their head. I do not agree with this part in the fact that for example kleptomaniacs, as Ayer uses, are not being forced to steal. Nobody is making them steal by promising a worse outcome if they do not. They actually will have a better outcome if they do not steal as they will

The thesis of meta-ethical cultural relativism is the philosophical viewpoint that there are no absolute moral truths, only truths relative to the cultural context in which they exist. From this it is therefore presumed that what one society considers to be morally right, another society may consider to be morally wrong, therefore, moral right's and wrongs are only relative to a particular society. Thus cultural relativism implies that what is 'good' is what is 'socially approved' in a given culture. Two arguments in favour of cultural relativism are the 'Cultural Differences argument' and the 'Argument from the virtue of tolerance', the following essay will look at and evaluate both of these

Based on one’s mentality, your mind is the characteristic attitude of the way you think of a person or a group, given this knowledge, your mentality and mindset sets together the things you say about anything, or in this case, towards something. What you say about something is your freedom of speech in America, the first amendment of the constitution, “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Madison, 1789). This amendment has it’s aspects where it helps out the fellow people of America livelihood, but instead, people can be deleterious towards what they say to someone and is also faced with hypocrisy.

Stein states that “expressing socially unacceptable views...is becoming more socially acceptable.” For instance, on websites such as 4chan and Reddit, users can express their multitudes of socially unacceptable opinions. The sites allow and encourage people to utilize their right to free speech. Contrary to popular belief, the people who have these socially unacceptable attitudes are not living in their parents’ basements and living off of Doritos and Mountain Dew; instead they are doctors, teachers, and lawyers. Expressing unpopular opinions has become more normal online.

The third alternative epistemology is the ethics of caring, furthermore Collins tells us that there are three basic components addressed here. First, the uniqueness that each individual brings to the table. Each individual’s expression is different; however, each plays a part in the completeness of the community. Second, the appropriateness of emotions used in dialogue. The emotion used as the