Expert: J.M.J. West - 1/11/2009

Question
QUESTION: hello

Are you familiar with Jesse Prinz, emotional construction of morals. If so i just finished reading the preamble to chapter 3. Was wondering if you find anything controversy about what he is saying??

ANSWER: Hi Steph,

I am only vaguely familiar with Prinze, but I understand him to be pushing some form of "emotivism", whereby all morality is relative, which is utter nonsense in this philosopher's opinion.  Most people who think the holocaust was actually a bad thing will agree with me.

For a good deconstruction of emotivism, I'd suggest picking up a copy of Alasdair MacIntyre's "After Virtue", wherein the first three chapters or so he completely disarms emotivism as groundless and circular.

Then, I'd pick up a good copy of the Nichomachean Ethics of Aristotle (or St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary on it).

Sorry I can't be of much more help.  If you'd like to post a bit of what you're having an issue with, I'd be willing to comment.

Good luck!

-J.M.J. West.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Would you mind elaborating on the halocaust example and how it ties with emotovism. Also why emotivism is utter nonsence for phiolosophers

Answer
Steph,

What I mean by bringing up the holocaust was that most people think that the holocaust was ACTUALLY, OBJECTIVELY a bad thing.  But, if emotivism is true, then moral statements "X is bad" and "Y is good" would mean little more than "I like Y" or "I dislike X, so stop doing it".  

Either "the holocaust was wrong" - OR - "I do not like things like the Holocaust".  One is very wishy-washy weak, and one is not.  So which is it?  Was what Nazi Germany did actually wrong, or just "not your preference"?

That is why I think emotivism is non-sense.  BUT, not all philosophers feel this way.

Hope that helps.

-J.M.J. West