Ayer would describe emotivism as statements that have no factual meaning, but function more as acts of emotion. The sentences can not be verifiable so its neither true nor false. Ayer applies it in his Language, Truth & Logic, Chapter 6 with language used. When someone states, “stealing money is wrong” a sentence is produced which has no factual meaning. That statement is basically neither true or false yet, merely showing the way we feel. Ayer would say that moral judgments have no genuine meaning, but simply express our feelings of approval or disapproval which in turn is to arouse those feelings in others. An example of emotivism in medical ethics could be a doctors believes on abortion or the use of contraception. A doctor may believe
…show more content…
Based off his reading After Virtue he discusses some great points. Interminable means endless, that there is no ending. MacIntyre describes for example a public debate, an agent enters the argument already presumably, explicitly or implicitly, settled the matter in question in his own mind. A debate has no rationalization; it would be shocking if a debate was rationalized. We can persuade another but that does not mean that they necessarily agree. Ayer argues, no moral debates can be rationally resolved, so we do not have a problem. All moral judgments are merely expressions of approval or disapproval. MacIntyre would say, moral debates in our culture can not be resolved rationally, so we have a problem. He states, “Contemporary moral argument is rationally interminable. because all moral, indeed all evaluative, argument is and always must be rationally interminable. Contemporary moral disagreements of a certain kind cannot be resolved, because no moral disagreements of that kind in any age, past, present or future, can be resolved.” Both MacIntyre and Ayer would agree with the same goal in mind, it is how to achieve that goal is their
Based off his reading After Virtue he discusses some great points. Interminable means endless, that there is no ending. MacIntyre describes for example a public debate, an agent enters the argument already presumably, explicitly or implicitly, settled the matter in question in his own mind. A debate has no rationalization; it would be shocking if a debate was rationalized. We can persuade another but that does not mean that they necessarily agree. Ayer argues, no moral debates can be rationally resolved, so we do not have a problem. All moral judgments are merely expressions of approval or disapproval. MacIntyre would say, moral debates in our culture can not be resolved rationally, so we have a problem. He states, “Contemporary moral argument is rationally interminable. because all moral, indeed all evaluative, argument is and always must be rationally interminable. Contemporary moral disagreements of a certain kind cannot be resolved, because no moral disagreements of that kind in any age, past, present or future, can be resolved.” Both MacIntyre and Ayer would agree with the same goal in mind, it is how to achieve that goal is their