So I heard from a philosophy major about something called emotivism. Emotivism used to be a mere philosophy but now it is becoming a huge problem in our society, even without people knowing what it is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/emotivism_1.shtml

Here are some fictitious but realistic examples with the problem of emotivism:

Example 1: Let's look at a hypothetical state where euthanasia is illegal. Let's say there's an advertisement for a proposition. The person running the ad hires real people to state about their lives about how *their* lives were affected by it not being legal. Now this is great in theory, but *all we know is how their lives were affected.* In an emotivist society, they don't have to list a single statistic showing that euthanasia should be legal. And the whole thing might as well be the medicine lobby, simply making money off of the subject, and everyone will listen. Meanwhile, the people who want to keep it illegal could have a trillion statistics showing that euthanasia should be illegal and why it is bad and no one will listen.

Now that is not to say in real life I think euthanasia should be illegal since I think there are a lot of paralyzed people or people in a state worse than death that should be allowed to die in their circumstance. Now I'm a guy who currently practices boxing so this doesn't apply to me, but I could easily go on Google and find a statistic right now on how many people will abuse it to commit suicide when they are able to move and have no serious illness other than a mental disorder vs how many people actually need it. Now I may not find something right away, but if I put in the research I'm not relying on emotivism. What's more ethical? Someone who's just depressed like me who can box on his own abusing it vs someone who actually needs it? These are questions a serious researcher might observe. But an emotivist doesn't care about these questions, just emotion.

Example 2: Let's look at an abortion debate five years ago when there was a chance it might have been illegal. A woman can go on the air and say "I'm so sad about how now being allowed to abort my child affected my family." Then she can go on and on and on about how her kid is being raised by an eighteen year old mother who didn't get to go to college. All we know in real life is how that affected *her.* She does not list a single statistic about abortions and how it affects society. She does not argue with the facts of the opposite side using facts. Maybe she lists the opposing sides facts and then simply states how the law does not work *for her.* But just by being humans, we are touched by what she says.

And these laws pass. And no one who votes for propositions with these people as actors actually looks at statistics. They simply want to go by emotion. They want to follow their heart.

As a consequence, these kinds of laws get passed consistently. No one cares.

What's your opinion on emotivism? Is it good? Is it a serious problem? Please state examples.