Examlex
A. J. Ayer: Language, Truth, And Logic
Ayer's logical positivism motivates his view on ethics, an empiricist approach to philosophy that was prevalent during the first half of the 20th century. Logical positivists thought that all significant statements could be divided into analytic and synthetic propositions. Analytic propositions are true (or false) solely in virtue of the meanings of the terms involved (e.g., "All bachelors are unmarried"). All propositions that are not analytic are synthetic. According to logical positivists, all synthetic statements are empirical hypotheses; that is, claims about actual or possible experiences. If a statement is neither analytic nor an empirical hypothesis, logical positivists maintain that it is meaningless.
Ayer considers several influential ethical theories: subjectivism, utilitarianism, and "absolutism" (the intuitionism of philosophers like Moore and Ross). Against subjectivism, Ayer claims that it would not be self-contradictory to say that some actions that are approved of are not right. Similarly, Ayer argues against utilitarianism by claiming that it is not contradictory to claim that it is sometimes wrong to do an action that would cause the greatest happiness. Ayer objects to absolutism on the grounds that it makes ethical claims empirically unverifiable, as different people have different intuitions about which acts are right or wrong. In light of this, Ayer claims that ethical statements are literally meaningless: They do not assert genuine propositions and are neither true nor false. Instead, that ethical statements serve the function of expressing our emotions, and of arousing similar feelings in others. Because on this view there is no truth in ethics, Ayer contends that it is impossible to argue about questions of value. We can try to persuade people to share our emotional reactions to things, but we cannot prove that our values are uniquely correct. Rather, "argument is possible on moral questions only if some system of values is presupposed."
-Ayer claims that "a strictly philosophical treatise on ethics should … make no ethical pronouncements." What does he mean by this, and why does he say it? Do you agree with this claim?
Walking
A form of locomotion involving the use of the legs to move the body forward, maintaining contact with the ground.
Neurons
Nerve cells that are the basic building blocks of the nervous system, responsible for transmitting information throughout the body in the form of electrical and chemical signals.
Interconnections
The links or relationships between different elements, systems, or phenomena, highlighting how they influence or affect each other.
Increases Dramatically
A significant and rapid rise or growth in quantity, level, or rate.
Q1: To decide whether there are reasonable grounds
Q3: The "emotive meaning" of a term is:<br>A)
Q5: How, according to Smart, does the extreme
Q10: Korsgaard maintains that the appeal of Kant's
Q10: According to Kant, the good will is
Q15: Mill claims it is immoral to sacrifice
Q16: Kant claims that there is a single
Q20: According to Williams, consequentialists are committed to
Q23: In Sartre's view, humans are responsible for:<br>A)
Q24: How does Anscombe respond to Hume's suggestion