i have an ethics exam i'm currently working on.

the question is: "explain what is ment by Rachaels when he says that "emotivism could not account for the place of reason in ethics".

first of all, that doesnt even seem like a complete sentance to me. and i have no fucking idea where to start.

my understanding is that emotivism is a way to evaluate language and expression, in terms of morality. and it claims that all statements are just manifestations of our own morals. and that if you say "i think stem cell research is wrong" you're really just saying "i'm morally against stem cell research, and any facts i provide to support this, are just facts i found to match my moral opinion on this topic".

but how the HELL does that have anything to do with the question?
i'm very seriously about to cry..

__________________

oh right.
we have a philo. forum. if this gets moved there, i understand.

__________________

Okay, from what I understand, this Rachaels person is saying that emotivism does not alleviate the effect or value of reason in ethics.

Emotivism explains that emotional response dictates our morality, but since reason is rooted in our emotional stances and reactions, our beliefs are too, therefore our ethics would be effected too. I guess that the reasoning depends on the emotional responses and what they effect rather than the argument that emotivism makes, which is that emotional response is the only root in reasoning and that any moral argument made is insignificant because it's rooted in emotion. Emotivism can muck up ethics since the conversations could end in raw, unrefined comments that only further the the amplification of emotions that are already present in the conversation in the first place. Emotivism lacks the compromising, weighing, considering etiquette that formative statements have. Therefore, emotivism covers a what more than a how and it has no place in the practical application of ethics, considering it defines the ethical arguments we get involved in as stupid, basically, but there's a problem: our beliefs are intertwined, maybe even stemming from our emotions, so it asserts the ethics instead because they drive us and found our ethics systems. Meta-ethical debate can go on forever but the effect they have in reality is definite. Emotivism is moot in practical application, the main focus of morals, ethics, and [some] beliefs, so the argument is indirectly related to reasoning since the end result explains [and justifies] the process of debate. Our ethics go from raw and chaotic to refined, clear, and sociably efficient [thus a debate can be a convergence of ideas rather than just yelling past each other, and a positively effective ethics system can be born].

__________________
"the height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create God in their own image"

he means like more cultural emotivism i think, the way I see it is he's pro some higher ethical law and it's not just cause we want to believe things are right because we empathise with them. i've never heard of him though, sounds like a god boy though.

in saying that, I dropped out of philosophy and with good cause.

__________________
If you ever feel useless and depressed, remember: one day you were the fastest spermatozoon of all.

Side notes: Someone in my grade 10 religion class at Catholic school wrote 'God loves me' in every field and passed. And someone immediately got a passing grade in a university philosophy class for replying to the professor's 'why?' with 'why not?'

How bold.

__________________
"the height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create God in their own image"

i've heard of responses such as these.
and i wish i'd have thought of them first.

__________________

I wish I was in that room with a chainsaw. That's what I wish.

So was my analysis good for you?

__________________
"the height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create God in their own image"

haha that's such an urban myth.

for a start academic philosophy is about learning to argue a points convincingly without falling in logical traps, not about saying incredibly deep nonsense. honestly, did they tell you they did that?

__________________
If you ever feel useless and depressed, remember: one day you were the fastest spermatozoon of all.

Someone actually did do the God loves me thing. They obviously weren't in my class, the teacher would've ripped it up, but they were in the school. It was gross. The board had it revised, thankfully.

Bet it was just some pothead drop-out who told that uni story to me, can't remember. Didn't take it seriously because I know that phil. class are better than that nonsense.

__________________
"the height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create God in their own image"

sortof. no. yes.
i mean, i understand emotivism.
but i'm ment to answer this question within the context of this academic essay by some asshat named Rachaels, in which he argues that "emotivism doesn't take the place of reason in ethics".. but i dont think emotivism was ever trying to do that in the first place. that's like saying "george w. bush doenst take the place of a wife in the kitchen". well no shit -- G Dub was never trying to make me dinner to begin with.

__________________

yeah but thinking back, every single moral philosopher arguing against a another theory blames their theory on emotivism. animal rights guys try and argue that people thinking it's wrong to kill a human over 50 apes is just because we emote with humans more and this isn't reasonably sound reason to kill 50 apes. is he a utilitarian per chance? maybe he's trying to refute that considering other peoples happiness is not neccesarily emoting with them but is reasonably sound. or something.

__________________
If you ever feel useless and depressed, remember: one day you were the fastest spermatozoon of all.

mostly i just hate philosophers.

if i wanted to sit around and listen to a bunch of self-important douchebags postulate and yell over one another, i'd go have dinner at my parent's house.

__________________

Or go talk to musicians. At least they're funner drunks and junkies than philosophers.

__________________
"the height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create God in their own image"

seriously.

i'd rather write an ethical evaluation of K. Fed than Ruth Cigman's views on the misfortune of death.

I'm seriousyl about to tear my hair out, i've already cried, over this godforsaken midterm.

__________________