The widespread and instinctual revulsion toward incest provides a strong case for emotivism. When pressed for a logical reason why it's wrong (beyond pragmatic concerns like birth defects), most people fall back on emotional expressions like 'it's just gross.' This suggests the moral judgment is rooted in a fundamental emotion, not a rational principle.
Related Insights
Emotions are not superfluous but are a critical, hardcoded value function shaped by evolution. The example of a patient losing emotional capacity and becoming unable to make decisions highlights this. This suggests our 'gut feelings' are a robust system for guiding actions, a mechanism current AI lacks.
Most arguments aren't a search for objective truth but an attempt to justify a pre-existing emotional state. People feel a certain way first, then construct a logical narrative to support it. To persuade, address the underlying feeling, not just the stated facts.
According to emotivism, when someone says 'murder is wrong,' they are not stating a verifiable fact about the world. Instead, they are expressing an emotion of disapproval. The moral component ('is wrong') functions like adding an angry emoji or a disapproving tone to the word 'murder,' conveying feeling rather than fact.
Emotions act as a robust, evolutionarily-programmed value function guiding human decision-making. The absence of this function, as seen in brain damage cases, leads to a breakdown in practical agency. This suggests a similar mechanism may be crucial for creating effective and stable AI agents.
A neuroscience study revealed that when subjects could choose an emotion to have stimulated in their brains, they universally chose anger. This is because anger provides a feeling of clarity and purpose, eliminating the uncomfortable states of anxiety and uncertainty that people hate.
Under the theory of emotivism, many heated moral debates are not about conflicting fundamental values but rather disagreements over facts. For instance, in a gun control debate, both sides may share the value of 'boo innocent people dying' but disagree on the factual question of which policies will best achieve that outcome.
People's conscious, stated reasons for their actions (proximate explanations) often obscure deeper, unconscious evolutionary drivers (ultimate explanations), such as the drive to reduce mating competition while appearing compassionate.
Research on contentious topics finds that individuals with the most passionate and extreme views often possess the least objective knowledge. Their strong feelings create an illusion of understanding that blocks them from seeking or accepting new information.
It's a profound mystery how evolution encoded high-level desires like seeking social approval. Unlike simple instincts linked to sensory input (e.g., smell), these social goals require complex brain processing to even define. The mechanism by which our genome instills a preference for such abstract concepts is unknown and represents a major gap in our understanding.
The power of a curse word isn't just its taboo subject matter. It's that its use establishes a shared understanding that the speaker is deliberately trying to elicit an involuntary emotional reaction. This makes it effective for conveying strong feelings but inappropriate in neutral settings where no emotional provocation is desired.
