Talk:Emotivism

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics / Analytic / Contemporary Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Analytic philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Attributing objections[edit]

First of all, these objections need to be attributed. Second of all, they don't seem to be correct. A steals from B. I have a negative reaction to A stealing from B. I criticize A stealing from B.

Emotivists suffer from the several key flaws in this line of thought, a couple being:

They could never legitimitely criticize the moral views of other people's actions.
They could never legitimitely criticize the moral views of their own actions.

If a person does something an emotivist doesn't like, he/she cannot criticize that person because, for that person, it may be morally correct.

This doesn't follow at all. A steals from B. A doesn't feel bad about stealing from B, but I feel bad about A stealing from B so I criticize A based on my feelings.

Likewise, they could not criticize themselves, either for past or present actions, because at the time, it would have been morally correct.

Again, doesn't follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 17:14, July 18, 2003 (UTC)

Elaboration[edit]

This page needs SIGNIFICANT elaboration, as this is a fairly important movement in 20th century ethics, from the viewpoint of both meta-ethical theory as well as modern analytic philosophy. It's connection to the school of Logical Postivism and the Vienna circle, as well as it's influence should be discussed in length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.245.121 (talk) 18:35, March 20, 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work[edit]

Hi everyone. I've been working on cleaning up meta-ethics articles lately, getting them all to agree with each other and match in formatting and presentation, and I have to say that this is the best-written one I've come across so far. Clear and precise, cohesive, with references and even illustrations. Congratulations to the editors here. We could use people like you on some of the other meta-ethics articles. -Pfhorrest (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Is it worth recording that RM Hare did not like the term "emotions" applied to moral, or indeed aesthetic, judgments? He said you could be emotional or calm and emotionless when delivering such a judgment, like "eating people is wrong". The judgments themselves were not emotions. This surely is true, but I am afraid the horse has bolted. It is also OR, being based on personal memory, and so can't go into the article. Seadowns (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quasi-realism & Emotivism[edit]

Both Emotivism and Quasi-realism state that these two meta-ethical positions are in opposition, but they do not give an explanation. Can someone help? Lboukoko (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]