This is a paper that
This is a paper that I recently wrote for my ethics 200 level course @ Cornell College i.e. it is not very advanced. Read it and tell me what you think.
On Emotive breakdown
Ethical problems? Ethical questions? Ethical dilemmas? Pseudo-propositions. The real problem, or rather, the real crisis, is that as the result of the continued evolution of Emotivism there is potentially no longer a meaningful sub-field within philosophy known as ethics. This is the problem that I find to be most perplexing. Can Emotivism be dealt with in respect to another ethical theory, or does it really mean that ethical arguments have no weight or relevance in application to reality. What does it mean in the context of contemporary society, especially in regard to the ethical questions, such as the proper way to proceed with the development of intellectual property law in a digital age? I plan to apply Sartre’s Existential Ethics to the problem of Emotivism, to show that it is merely a predictable instance of Bad faith in the face of despair, and that, ethical questions, such as the proper way to proceed with the development of intellectual property law, can still be asked and answered in a substantial manner.
Emotivism is an ethical theory that was first developed by A.J. Ayer in his book Language, Truth, and Logic. It rests upon the classification of all statements into three separate categories, tautological statements, factual statements, and pseudo statements. The first of the three, the tautological statement, is a proposition which is a logical truth, this is to say a statement which is necessarily true because of its logical form, it cannot be false. An example of this form is 2+2=4. The second set, factual statements, can be either true or false, depending on the arrangement of reality, i.e. “I am sitting next to Christie,” could be either true or false at any given time depending on whether I am in fact sitting next to Christie. The third type of statement, the “pseudo proposition,” is a statement that is independent of logical analysis, that is to say that they are not verifiable via logic, and is where, according to the logical positivist, all moral statements exist., e.g. “bread is good” or “abortion is bad”. According to the logical positivist these statements are merely the expression of emotion on the count of the person making the statement, and as a result have no more moral weight than the proclamation “bread YUMMM!” or “Abortion BAHHH!”. The relevance to more complex contemporary ethical conundrums, such as the proper way to proceed in respect to the rightful use of intellectual property is no more fruitful. Intellectual property laws? Bahhh! Or perhaps, if you are a college student with a high-speed internet connection, Yummmm! If Emotivism is true what does it mean for the state of ethics? Does ethics exist? Is my writing this paper an exercise in futility? Might I just as well fill this page with repetitious “YUMMMs” and “BAHHHHs”? I don’t think so.
There is I believe an answer to the problem posed by the logical positivist of the non-existence of ethics. And that answer is in the existential philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir. Existentialism is based upon the ontology of “Being and Nothingness” that is to say that existence it divided into two categories, “that which is”, and “that which is not”. The philosophy is primarily concerned with the way that these two categories relate to each other and the resulting consequences of that relationship. An example of something that has a “being” is as simple as looking toward the nearest “thing” in your field of vision. This could be a chair, a bowl, a cup, everything that you can see has a being, that is of course unless what you are looking at is not a thing. What aren’t things? What lacks a “being”? What is “nothing”? People for starters, or any other legitimately conscious entity. Human beings are not things. What distinguishes a person from a thing is the the fact that people are constantly becoming more than they are, they are in a perpetual state of transcedence. Their being is not to be. How is this the case? It is the case because of freedom. At any given time there is a choice that is being made, even deciding not to choose is to make the choice not to choose, it is the result of the constant presence of choice that accurately defines a persons being as not to be. People are always becoming more than they are. A thing on the other hand does not have presence of mind and as a result does not ever choose to be more than it is, a thing is something in itself. It is “being in itself” that defines a thing as a thing as opposed to a person that is not a thing, or more accurately “nothing”. It is from this ontology that existential ethics falls out in the form of Good and Bad faith.
“Good Faith,” “Bad Faith,” are the quantifiers of the relationship between “being” and “nothingness”. What does this have to do with ethics, and how is it applicable to the problem of Emotivism? Bad faith is the denial of freedom and the assumption of being either in oneself or in others, for example if I were to make the claim that I was in fact a doctor and that being a doctor is what defined my being, I would be guilty of bad faith. Similarly if I made the claim that an other person was a waiter and that being as a waiter was defined solely as such I would also be guilty of bad faith by way of my denying the freedom and subsequent nothingness of that person. Good Faith on the other hand is the affirmation of freedom and nothingness. So if I were to say that I am a doctor, but that really it is only something I do, and if,most importantly, I affirmed that being a doctor does not define me, I am in good faith. What would be the motivation of a person to be in bad faith and immoral, if being in good faith and moral is seemingly so easy. It is because being in good faith is much more difficult and painful than it first appears. To embrace ones nothingness is to embrace the reality of ones own freedom. And the emotion that is most often associated with this action is despair. Despair! because to honestly accept that anything is possible is to lose the assurance that life has reason and purpose. To accept oneself as free is to accept the possibility that tomorrow gives no assurance. If you are a doctor today, you could be a murderer tomorrow, or a bum, or a student, or a street cleaner. Instead of facing the unknown and uncertainly of reality it is much easier to make claims, in bad faith, that affirm ones being and limit one’s freedom. Such statements provide security and comfort in an otherwise hostile world. It is Despair that the logical positivist were reacting to when they developed their ethical theory of Emotivism. To say that a statement such as “murder is bad” is merely a pseudo-proposition is immoral because it is in bad faith. “Murder is bad” does not rely upon logic for its correctness, if it is in fact correct. If the statement “murder is bad” is correct, it is so because of what “murder” is as well as what “bad” is. If murder is defined as the ultimate deprivation and denial of a persons freedom, and bad is defined as that which is undesirable, then it is correct that it is undesirable to deprive someone of their freedom, because the deprivation of freedom is certainly an instance of bad faith. The proper way to approach any ethical problem is to do so individually, case by case, and analyze according not to logical form and verifiability, but rather to the statements adherence to good or bad faith.
So in regard to intellectual property laws? What is right? What is Moral? Well there is no single correct answer, needless to say that would be far to simple. Intellectual Property law and its revision, just like any other ethical problem, must be approached from the standpoint of subjectivity. The question of intellectual property itself used to not be a problem that was of much concern to the average person, and drafting a law that accomidated the limited scope of its practical intended range was not nearly so difficult if not simply for that fact that there were fewer perspectives to take into account. Things have changed drastically in the past few years as the result of technological advancements that enable intellectual material, such as books and music, to be replicated an infinite number of times with no significant loss of overall quality. So the specific moral question of concern is not intellectual property itself, but rather how the creators of the content are regarded by the people replicating the intellectual content. There is not a universal edict that can be passed either affirming or dismissing the claims of intellectually property law outright. Instead each instance of intellectual property use must be dealt with individually. If the creators of intellectual content are respected as full human beings and treated in good faith by the people replicating their material, those actions can rightfully be refereed to as moral. From a practical stand point it would be nice if a person were to pay for the intellectual content as a tangible show of respect for the creator, but it is not necessary in order to make the act moral. On the other hand if a person were to replicate intellectual content and not respect the creator as a person and did not pay as a result of that disrespect, the actions could be accurately refereed to as immoral. So in light of this, the proper way to proceed in regard to drafting new intellectual property law would be to take into consideration the various ways in which people would be inclined to treat creators as objects and make the law reflect some sort of protection against that objectification.
Ethics, I believe, are alive and well. The Existential ethical framework provided by Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beovoir is a very powerful tool in dealing honestly with the state of the world and the ethical complexites that abound within it. The Ethical crisis of Emotivism is I believe ably dealt with as an instance of existential bad faith and is in such deflated of much of its power. However, though I do not think emotivism provides any substantial answer to any type of problem, I do think it is capable of capturing my feelings concerning Existentialism. Yummm!