Arguments Against Emotivism

Emotivism is the position that moral judgements do not have objective, universal truth value. Moral judgements are not as they were understood for a long time - the assertion of a claim - but simply the expression of our attitudes and emotions. An emotivist scrutinizes the problem of morality and argues that in place of objectivity, there exists only a simple reaction to a thought.

A. J. Ayer, the English philosopher who first advanced the philosophy argued that it is impossible to determine whether or not an ethical belief system is valid, which makes it then insensible to even ask questions regarding ethics. With this rationalization, Ayers asserts that the study of moral judgments should be centered instead on what causes people to entertain certain reactions and emotions. If a person holds a position on morality, they are expected to be able to support that position with moral reasons but in the understanding of emotivism, a moral reason to support an argument does not exist other than as a tool to influence other people to share our reaction.
If one were to examine what a world might look like in such a reality, we encounter problems immediately. For example, if there is no such thing as reasoning, then the idea of emotivism itself is suspect. How did the first emotivists determine their philosophy? It is difficult to believe that they would contend that their entire theory is simply a reaction, a feeling, and not based on a method of rationalization. Rationalisation can not exist in the emotivist world. If we can rationalize a theory of emotivism, a theory of morality well, then one could not say that rationalizing the validity of another theory is an