The Richards and Emotivism Debate

The Richards and Emotivism debate centers on how moral statements are understood. Richards believed moral language conveys factual, objective truths about right and wrong, similar to scientific claims. Emotivists, on the other hand, argued moral statements don't express facts but are expressions of our feelings or attitudes—like saying "I approve" or "I disapprove." Essentially, Richards saw morality as factual discourse, while Emotivism viewed moral language as emotional or expressive, emphasizing subjective attitudes over objective facts.