The question of whether moral claims are capable of being true or false lies at the heart of metaethics. The view that such claims merely express approval or disapproval is emotivism, which challenges the common assumption that moral judgements describe objective moral facts. Instead, they argue that the primary function of moral language is to convey attitudes and influence others’ feelings or actions. This essay supports emotivism by arguing that moral claims lack truth value because they function fundamentally as expressions of emotional and evaluative stances rather than factual propositions.
Non-cognitivism, particularly in the form of A.J. Ayer’s emotivism, provides a compelling explanation for why moral claims are neither true nor false. Ayer’s verification principle holds that “a statement is factually meaningful only if it is analytic (true by definition) or empirically verifiable in principle.” Statements like “the Earth is 4.5 billion years old” or “water boils at 100°C at sea level” could be checked against geological or physical evidence; however, since moral claims like “murder is wrong” cannot be verified through observation or deduced through logic, they cannot be considered truth-apt. Instead, they serve to express emotional reactions—“Boo murder!”—and to influence others’ attitudes. Furthermore, moral language is inherently persuasive, aiming not only to express truth or falsity but to shape the listener’s attitudes accordingly. This interpretation explains why moral discourse so often carries a motivational force absent from purely factual statements.
Motivational internalism strengthens the case for emotivism. It argues that if one sincerely makes a moral judgment, one is necessarily motivated, to some degree, to act accordingly. If someone has absolutely no motivation to avoid stealing, they cannot sincerely judge “Stealing is wrong.” If moral statements were purely cognitive beliefs about objective facts, motivation should not be built into them; yet moral judgements seem intrinsically action-guiding. This suggests that they function more like attitudes or prescriptions.
Moreover, emotivism accounts for persistent and deep moral disagreements. When people dispute issues like abortion or capital punishment, the disagreement is often rooted in fundamentally different values or attitudes, rather than in disagreements about observable facts like the biological details of a pregnancy or the number of people executed. Emotivism avoids positing metaphysical, objective moral properties like CI and felicific calculus that individuals might perceive differently. It offers a straightforward explanation for the relativism of moral judgments across cultures. If moral claims are expressions of emotional attitudes, it makes sense that different cultures or individuals could have different emotional responses to the same issue. This approach aligns with Ockham’s Razor, as its explanation is simpler, more naturalistic, and more consistent with how moral debates actually unfold.
Despite the strengths of emotivism, powerful objections come from cognitivist and realist perspectives, which argue that moral claims are propositions capable of truth or falsity.
In ordinary life, people treat moral statements as fact-like. Moral intuitionists argue that many moral claims, such as “it is wrong to torture innocent people,” appear to be universally binding, not merely expressions of personal feelings. Our everyday usage suggests that moral language is truth-apt and that individuals perceive moral discourse as involving correctness and error. G.E. Moore argued against emotivism by claiming that moral properties like “goodness” are non-natural properties that exist independently of our emotional responses; saying “X is good” is not the same as expressing an emotion but is an attempt to state an objective fact about the world. Phillipa Foot further argued that moral facts are grounded in human nature and that we can make rational judgments about what is good or bad based on the natural functions and purposes of human beings.
Furthermore, moral disagreement often appears to involve more than clashing attitudes. People typically appeal to reasons, evidence, and principles when debating moral issues. For example, discussions about animal rights frequently revolve around factual claims about sentience, harm, or ecological impact. If moral claims were mere expressions of approval or disapproval, it is difficult to explain why such reasoning plays such a central role in moral debate. Emotivism can’t be a correct theory of morality because it implies that people are morally infallible, and it denies that there are any substantive moral disagreements, which does not fit reality.
Another major philosophical challenge to emotivism is the Frege–Geach problem. Emotivism says that a moral sentence just expresses an emotion or attitude; however, for ethical guidelines to apply to real arguments we often use them inside larger logical structures, for example: P1) If stealing is wrong, then getting your little brother to steal is wrong; P2) stealing is wrong; C) therefore getting your little brother to steal is wrong. In such embedded contexts, the simple emotivist translation collapses: “If boo stealing!, then boo getting-your-brother-to-steal!” is not a coherent conditional, because modus ponens need truth-evaluable contents, not raw emotions. It violates the logical requirement that a sentence keep the same meaning across different contexts, so emotivism seems unable to account for the clear validity of ordinary moral reasoning.
Although the counterarguments raise important points, emotivism can respond effectively. First, the fact that ordinary moral language behaves as if it were truth-apt does not entail that moral statements genuinely possess truth values. Quasi-realists such as Simon Blackburn argue that human discourse naturally tends toward adopting truth-like structures even in areas where no genuine truth-makers exist. This explains why moral claims can appear in conditionals and arguments: we project logical structure onto expressions of attitude without thereby converting them into factual assertions.
Regarding the appeal to reasons and evidence in moral debates, emotivism reinterprets this behavior. People appeal to empirical facts, such as facts about harm or well-being, because such facts influence their underlying attitudes. Moral arguments frequently involve clarifying the non-moral facts that shape evaluative responses; once those facts are agreed upon, attitudes may converge. For example, two people might initially disagree about the morality of factory farming, but once they both observe the animals’ extreme suffering and learn that the practices cause significant environmental harm, the new empirical information can lead them to adopt similar attitudes of disapproval.
Finally, the Frege–Geach problem wrongly assumes that emotivism must treat moral sentences in conditionals and arguments as raw emotional catharsis. Moral expressivists respond by giving moral sentences stable functional roles. A sentence like “Stealing is wrong” expresses not only disapproval to stealing but also a commitment to a norm that forbids stealing, and this commitment can be embedded in conditionals without needing truth values. Thus, in “If stealing is wrong, then getting your brother to steal is wrong,” the validity of the argument is preserved because what is inherited in the antecedent and consequent is a pattern of inferential, normative commitments. In conclusion, emotivism and related non-cognitivist theories explain why moral judgements motivate action, why disagreement persists, and how moral discourse operates without positing objective moral facts. Ultimately, moral claims are best understood as expressive, evaluative acts embedded within human social and emotional life.
English 
Chinese