
"Emotivism is a meta-ethical view that claims that ethical sentences do not express propositions but emotional attitudes."
- - - - - - - - - -
(video embedded at bottom) ‘Facts don’t care about your feelings’: Piers Morgan sits down with Ben Shapiro
https://youtu.be/eiOQNkQZfJY
(EXCERPT) MORGAN: Truth is no longer factual, it's just whatever you're feeling in any given moment. It seems such a perverse thing for a Democratic Society that you move away from fact based, from science -- whatever it may be -- to just feelings dominating a culture. And if you defy those feelings you are instantly branded the enemy, and you must be destroyed.
SHAPIRO: There's no conversation to be had, right. I can't have a conversation about your feelings. There's no way for me to dissuade you.
MORGAN: You can't deny my feeling correct.
SHAPIRO: I can deny the [supposed] facts that you bring to the table, but the problem is once that becomes irrelevant then we're just at an impasse, there's no more conversation to be had.
MORGAN: Simultaneously, I think you've had the rise of very populist leaders like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson in the UK, and others who play pretty fast and loose with the truth. You have people who say, well hang on, you talk about the sanctity of truth -- but you've got these political leaders, U.S. presidents and British prime ministers, where they don't seem to care about the truth. They just bumble through with whatever suits them from day to day. How dangerous is that to the whole shebang?
SHAPIRO: I think that is dangerous, but it's dangerous in a different way. It's also dangerous in a more consistent and historically precedented way. I mean, the fact is the politicians have always fibbed to us. There's nothing new about politicians saying things that are not true, from LBJ to George W bush to Donald Trump and Barack Obama. Like literally every politician...
MORGAN: Joe Biden...
SHAPIRO: Yeah, right. You see this all the time. So the idea of a politician not telling the truth, or shading the truth in a particular way -- that's not what's new. I think what's new is where people are presented with data and their immediate response is not "Let me bring you some data that rebuts that data" but instead "I don't even have to look at your data because your motivation is bad".
MORGAN: How dangerous is it though, that we've also become incredibly tribal. I think more than I can ever remember in modern history, actually. When I read your Twitter feed, I think you're always prepared to call out your own side if you genuinely feel there's been some egregious wrongdoing that they've done or a terrible mistake or whatever.
But the number of people prepared to do that now on social media in particular is minuscule. Most people park themselves into their tribe -- whatever that tribe may be -- and there is no moving them, there's no deviation, even if the facts change. And again it plays into if your feelings are the facts, then if you feel that fact is wrong, well that's enough.
SHAPIRO: Right. But the tribalism that I think has cropped up is rooted in a philosophy called emotivism. Which is the idea that everybody's actual viewpoints are not driven by their view of the facts, it's driven by their internal emotions. What that allows me to do, on the converse, is attribute malicious intent to people that I'm arguing with. And it means that I get to ignore all of their facts.
The reason that I'm disagreeing with you is because I'm good, and you're a bad person. What that means is that people on my own side, for example, they might be upset with me for talking with people on the other side of the aisle. Because why would you talk to somebody who's a nasty person, who has bad motivations? And the same thing on people on the other side talking to me.
I was having a conversation one time with a very, very large left-wing podcaster -- this is probably 2018 -- and I said, you know, we should really do like a crossover podcast for the midterm elections. We'll do huge business, and my side will be totally fine with it -- it'll be great. And he said, "Your site will be fine with it, but my side will kill me." That's probably the way it's got.
MORGAN: Bill Maher said to me, "You know that comedy used to be rooted really in right wing extremism being comedic." That was where liberal comics like him could get their material. Now he said it's mainly to the left. It's the woke area of politics that gives him the most comedic material. And he can't believe it. As a liberal himself, he feels just really frustrated that they don't understand how ridiculous and laughable their positions on things have become.
‘Facts don’t care about your feelings’: Piers Morgan sits down with Ben Shapiro
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/eiOQNkQZfJY
- - - - - - - - - -
(video embedded at bottom) ‘Facts don’t care about your feelings’: Piers Morgan sits down with Ben Shapiro
https://youtu.be/eiOQNkQZfJY
(EXCERPT) MORGAN: Truth is no longer factual, it's just whatever you're feeling in any given moment. It seems such a perverse thing for a Democratic Society that you move away from fact based, from science -- whatever it may be -- to just feelings dominating a culture. And if you defy those feelings you are instantly branded the enemy, and you must be destroyed.
SHAPIRO: There's no conversation to be had, right. I can't have a conversation about your feelings. There's no way for me to dissuade you.
MORGAN: You can't deny my feeling correct.
SHAPIRO: I can deny the [supposed] facts that you bring to the table, but the problem is once that becomes irrelevant then we're just at an impasse, there's no more conversation to be had.
MORGAN: Simultaneously, I think you've had the rise of very populist leaders like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson in the UK, and others who play pretty fast and loose with the truth. You have people who say, well hang on, you talk about the sanctity of truth -- but you've got these political leaders, U.S. presidents and British prime ministers, where they don't seem to care about the truth. They just bumble through with whatever suits them from day to day. How dangerous is that to the whole shebang?
SHAPIRO: I think that is dangerous, but it's dangerous in a different way. It's also dangerous in a more consistent and historically precedented way. I mean, the fact is the politicians have always fibbed to us. There's nothing new about politicians saying things that are not true, from LBJ to George W bush to Donald Trump and Barack Obama. Like literally every politician...
MORGAN: Joe Biden...
SHAPIRO: Yeah, right. You see this all the time. So the idea of a politician not telling the truth, or shading the truth in a particular way -- that's not what's new. I think what's new is where people are presented with data and their immediate response is not "Let me bring you some data that rebuts that data" but instead "I don't even have to look at your data because your motivation is bad".
MORGAN: How dangerous is it though, that we've also become incredibly tribal. I think more than I can ever remember in modern history, actually. When I read your Twitter feed, I think you're always prepared to call out your own side if you genuinely feel there's been some egregious wrongdoing that they've done or a terrible mistake or whatever.
But the number of people prepared to do that now on social media in particular is minuscule. Most people park themselves into their tribe -- whatever that tribe may be -- and there is no moving them, there's no deviation, even if the facts change. And again it plays into if your feelings are the facts, then if you feel that fact is wrong, well that's enough.
SHAPIRO: Right. But the tribalism that I think has cropped up is rooted in a philosophy called emotivism. Which is the idea that everybody's actual viewpoints are not driven by their view of the facts, it's driven by their internal emotions. What that allows me to do, on the converse, is attribute malicious intent to people that I'm arguing with. And it means that I get to ignore all of their facts.
The reason that I'm disagreeing with you is because I'm good, and you're a bad person. What that means is that people on my own side, for example, they might be upset with me for talking with people on the other side of the aisle. Because why would you talk to somebody who's a nasty person, who has bad motivations? And the same thing on people on the other side talking to me.
I was having a conversation one time with a very, very large left-wing podcaster -- this is probably 2018 -- and I said, you know, we should really do like a crossover podcast for the midterm elections. We'll do huge business, and my side will be totally fine with it -- it'll be great. And he said, "Your site will be fine with it, but my side will kill me." That's probably the way it's got.
MORGAN: Bill Maher said to me, "You know that comedy used to be rooted really in right wing extremism being comedic." That was where liberal comics like him could get their material. Now he said it's mainly to the left. It's the woke area of politics that gives him the most comedic material. And he can't believe it. As a liberal himself, he feels just really frustrated that they don't understand how ridiculous and laughable their positions on things have become.
‘Facts don’t care about your feelings’: Piers Morgan sits down with Ben Shapiro