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

  1. What does "get to" in the context mean?
  2. 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?


1 Answer 1


(1) It's part of the phrasal verb get close to. "The nearest equivalent to moral argument that we would be able to have would be..."

(2) The falsity of emotivism is alleged, because we can have serious debates on moral issues

  • Many thanks! I get it now!
    – XVI
    Aug 20, 2021 at 12:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .