One criticism of emotivism is that if it were true then all moral argument would be impossible. The closest we would be able to get to moral argument would be two people expressing their emotions to each other: the equivalent of one shouting ‘Boo!’ and the other ‘Hooray!’ But, it is alleged, we do have serious debates on moral issues, so emotivism must be false.
[Philosophy: The basics]
I've got 2 questions to ask
- What does "get to" in the context mean?
- I don't know the use of "it is alleged" between two commas. Does "it" refer to the criticism or something else? Could you explain it to me?