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.
Related Insights
In intimate relationships, arguing over objective facts is a recipe for disaster. According to therapist Terry Real, "objective reality has no place in intimate relationships." Trying to prove your point with logic ignores your partner's emotional experience and only escalates conflict. Focus on feelings, not facts.
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.
Winning an argument by proving a factual point (e.g., "you were technically yelling") is a losing strategy in relationships. Therapist Terry Real's framework suggests subjective perception is what truly matters. Establishing "objective reality" invalidates your partner's experience and derails resolution.
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.
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.
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.
The AI debate is becoming polarized as influencers and politicians present subjective beliefs with high conviction, treating them as non-negotiable facts. This hinders balanced, logic-based conversations. It is crucial to distinguish testable beliefs from objective truths to foster productive dialogue about AI's future.
A brain study revealed people prefer anger over joy or love. Anger is neurologically rewarding because it offers a simple, powerful feeling of being right and morally superior, making it a potent tool for political mobilization and a driver of tribalism.
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.
