I think consequentalism is a form of ethics, where emotivism is a system of meta-ethics, so they aren't mutually exclusive. A form of conseuentalism may value emotional states to be maximised (say, in Hedonism) which might be determined in relation to our emotional evaluations. The ethical moment to which an emotivist would react to might be in the consequence of the action or in reaction to the maxim governing action.
Ayer's belief that morals are subjective, lacking a truth value, means that the meta-ethical system of emotivism can be alligned with any ethical system.
The three main subdivisions of consequentialism are act consequentialism, rule consequentialism, and global consequentialism. Act consequentialism evaluates the moral worth of individual actions based on their outcomes, while rule consequentialism focuses on following a set of rules that produce the best outcomes overall. Global consequentialism takes into account the consequences of actions on a broader scale, considering the overall impact across all individuals.
consequentialism
approves of the act.
Emotivism is also known as noncognitivism.
Vetoes are overridden by 2/3 vote from The House and Senate.
Methods which are declared final cannot be overridden.
John Tyler was the first to have a veto overridden.
Emotivism is a metaethical theory that states moral judgments are expressions of emotions or attitudes, rather than objective truths. In other words, when someone makes a moral statement, they are not expressing a fact about the world, but rather their own feelings or beliefs about a particular issue.
Consequentialism is an attractive ethical approach because it provides clear and practical guidance – at least in situations where outcomes are easy to predict. The theory is also impartial.
Sure. An overridden method can return anything it wants.
I am not sure what you mean. Congress has overridden some presidential vetoes.
Precedence of operators in an expression overridden by the use of parentheses