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 rejects the subjectivist view that a thing is good because one approves of it, because:
Q1: Herman claims that in Kant's view, when
Q3: Herman claims that when we are considering
Q9: According to Kant, under what circumstances does
Q10: According to Smart, there is a distinction
Q12: Write an essay critically examining Augustine's account
Q19: What is a law of nature, according
Q20: Sidwick argues that legal sanctions are insufficient
Q24: Herman claims that for Kant, merely permissible
Q27: Aggregation in moral reasoning is employed by:<br>A)
Q31: Aquinas claims that man naturally desires to