Question

based on a logical analysis of its premises and tenets, which conclusion can be reached about emotivism as a moral perspective?
a) a rejection of emotivism simultaneously is a rejection of tolerance, and that is unacceptable to moral philosophers.
b) there are no fundamental differences between the emotivist perspective and an objectivist analysis of morality.
c) emotivism provides clear standards for judging the rightness or wrongness of a given action.
d) there are no good reasons to prefer it over common sense, and there are good grounds for rejecting it.

Explanation:

Emotivism frames moral statements as emotional expressions, not factual claims.

• Option a is wrong: Rejecting emotivism does not equal rejecting tolerance; this is a false link.
• Option b is wrong: Emotivism is anti-objectivist, so they are fundamentally opposed.
• Option c is wrong: Emotivism has no objective standards for moral judgments, as it is based on emotion.
• Option d is correct: Emotivism lacks justifications to be preferred over common sense, and faces valid criticisms (like inability to resolve moral disagreements) that give grounds for rejection.

Answer:

d) There are no good reasons to prefer it over common sense, and there are good grounds for rejecting it.