Exam 18: A.J.Ayer

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 ethical disputes boil down to:

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:

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 ethical statements are used to express feelings, but are not used to assert that a speaker has those feelings. What is the difference, and why is it important to Ayer's theory?

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." -In Ayer's view, moral expressions are not prescriptive

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 people dispute about questions of value:

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." -According to Ayer, the validity of an ethical judgment is:

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." -According to Ayer's theory, what is the meaning of the claim "stealing is wrong"? Do you find Ayer's account plausible? Why or why not?

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:

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 objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that:

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." -In addition to expressing feelings, Ayer claims that ethical terms serve to:

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 argues that the ethical statements in our language can be translated into statements of empirical fact.

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 no one ever really disputes about questions of value.

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 utilitarianism and subjectivism are attractive because:

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." -On Ayer's theory, the statement "Stealing is wrong" is closest in meaning to:

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 all synthetic propositions are empirical hypotheses.

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 criticizes intuition as a source of moral knowledge on the grounds that:

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 the function of ethical terms is purely:

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 synthetic proposition is significant only if it is:

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." -Moore objected to subjectivism on the grounds that it cannot account for ethical disagreement. How does Ayer explain ethical disagreement? Does his account avoid Moore's objection?

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?