Transcript Jon`s powerpoint on AJ Ayer

A. J. Ayer and Emotivism
Jon Sanders
Sir Alfred Jules “Freddie” Ayer
•
•
•
•
•
1910 – 1989
Language, Truth and Logic (1936)
Educated: Eton; Christ Church, Oxford
Supporter of Tottenham Hotspur F.C.
Notable friends: Graham Greene, George Orwell, ee cummings,
Bertrand Russell, W. H. Auden, Isaiah Berlin, Alan Bennett, Iris
Murdoch.
• Later renounced his beliefs in logical positivism.
• At a party held by fashion designer Fernando Sanchez, Ayer, then
77, confronted Mike Tyson harassing Naomi Campbell. When Ayer
demanded that Tyson stop, the boxer said: "Do you know who the
fuck I am? I'm the heavyweight champion of the world," to which
Ayer replied: "And I am the former Wykeham Professor of Logic. We
are both pre-eminent in our field. I suggest that we talk about this
like rational men".
Logical Positivism and the Verification
Principle
• Interested in science; sceptical of theology and
metaphysics.
• The verification principle: a statement is only
meaningful if there is a conclusive procedure
determining whether it is true or false.
• Therefore, ‘God exists’ is a meaningless
statement.
• Types of meaningful statement: analytic (true by
definition) and synthetic (true by evidence) (LTAL)
A Brief Criticism of Logical Positivism
• The verification principle
itself cannot be verified.
• Counter-argument: Logical
Positivism is a philosophy of
science, not an axiomatic
system that can prove its
own consistency (cf. Gödel’s
incompleteness theorem).
Emotivism
• Ethical non-cognitivism: no ethical knowledge is
possible, because ethical statements cannot be
proved true or false.
• Moral utterances function primarily to express
emotions (and perhaps arouse similar emotions
in others).
• Nicknamed the ‘boo/hurrah theory’ – not exactly
accurate.
• Ethical statements are expressions of
approval/disapproval, not assertions (e.g. ‘Theft
is wrong’ ≠‘I disapprove of theft’).
Quote from LTAL
“The presence of an ethical symbol in a
proposition adds nothing to its factual content.
Thus if I say to someone, ‘You acted wrongly in
stealing that money,’ I am not saying anything
more than if I had simply said, ‘You stole that
money’. In adding that this action is wrong I am
not making any further statement about it. I am
simply evincing my moral disapproval of it. It is as
if I had said, ‘You stole that money,’ in a peculiar
tone of horror, or written it with the addition of
some special exclamation marks.”
Criticisms
• Different opinions arise from our differing perceptions of predicates.
• Brandt: People who change their moral views see previous views not
as simply different, but mistaken. Facts and reason are involved in
moral judgements.
• Counter-argument: Ayer does not specifically reject this.
Approval/Disapproval is partly based on reason.
• Rachels: Leads to unruly subjectivism, since no one is right.
• Similarly, it could be seen to allow complete freedom of action.
• Counter-arguments: i) Although he argues that ethical statements have
no factual content, Ayer does not say that they have no meaningful
function. ii) Emotivism is not a normative theory , so the second
criticism does not apply.