On Emotivism

December 6th, 2025

I am inclined to believe that emotivism is true, and yet there is something within me that does not believe it. Reflecting on it brings forth the thought that emotivism is simply not practical. It is not sufficient in and of itself. It may be sufficient if people truly lived independent, isolated, and alone. But in an interconnected, complex, and diverse world, it seems obviously lacking.

I do agree that many people make decisions based on their emotional response to things. Like the saying “cleanliness is next to godliness”, many people emote that a filthy home is disgusting and this has a large bearing on the moral weight they place on cleanliness and hygiene. And yet, this disgust reaction could also be due to socialization itself, being conditioned over time to find something disgusting that one naturally does not. It is quite possible that someone could not have a disgust reaction at all to lack of hygiene, for short periods neglect their own hygiene, and yet still believe being filthy is wrong simply because it is what their religion or family or society has taught them. They could themselves emote that being filthy is enjoyable, and yet through reflection and rational thought realize that due to the risk of germs and illness, it is preferential to be clean and thus they follow an edict of cleanliness in their life in spite of their emotive preference and teach their children to do the same. Emotivism in and of itself is too simplistic to explain the complexity of human moral and ethical life.

What of the emotions one feels when a person is enduring immense suffering before them? Even trying to block it out and be numb to it is a defense against the deep emotion itself. Those who are sadists are said to feel pleasure towards it. Yet, most people have an utter revulsion against the suffering of others. There is some aspect of me that simply feels this suffering must be wrong. It is so disquieting and so terrible that somehow it must be wrong and it must be good to limit the most intense forms of suffering. This is a feeling that I have. It is as if I am emoting a “yay” toward this moral edict, asserting it to be right, despite what the rare sadist may feel. That sadistic view itself brings about an even deeper discomfort and disgust toward that idea that someone could find joy in the suffering of another.

I think it is most plausible that most moral and ethical beliefs are likely founded, at their core, on emotive responses based in genetics and evolution. And yet, so what? If we all define our moral life based off of these emotes, there is no way for us to truly live within a society. There needs to be some form of social contract. It seems logical for there to be some agreement that people can act based on most of their disgusts and preferences; yet these emotes structuring their actions cannot then violate the ability of others to put forth their agency too. The agency of one is limited by the agency of another.

It seems almost self-evident that emotivism must be managed by social contract. And then what does a social contract become? It becomes ethics, it becomes what a society negotiates to be within the realm of acceptable actions and unacceptable ones; what is right to do and wrong to do. This includes values and ethics that may have no immediate value, but in the long term prevent outcomes that everyone agrees would be worse than the current state.

We can get trapped by our immediate emotions and be disgusted by what they lead us to do. Our short term gains can torment us once a sober mind returns. Stuck between the feeling something was good for us in the moment, and finding it bad for us in hindsight. It is necessary for us to balance our whims with something seemingly outside of us, whether it is a purported objective truth or some internal guideline. We need balance and restraints. We need checks on our impulses. Without them we are left in a state of internal chaos, loving and hating ourselves from one moment to the next.

Ethics is quite complex. Do I want there to be an objective moral truth we can discover? Yes. Do I think there is? No. Do I think it is purely subjective? No, it simply seems false to say it is so. Most people are revolted by the idea that morality is subjective, most people want there to be right and wrong. So we are left to define our morals and ethics within a social contract. We are left to enshrine this within custom, culture, and law. We are left to socialize one another in a way that supports the thriving of our lives and society. For many, including me, this feels right. Emotively, it feels like the best path forward.

© 2025 Austin Lochan Dodd