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." -According to Ayer, all ethical concepts are pseudo-concepts.

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 fundamental ethical concepts are unanalyzable.

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." -What objections does Ayer raise to intuition as a means of gaining moral knowledge? Do you find these objections convincing?

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." -What is the "absolutist" view of ethics, and what does it have in common with Ayer's view? How do the two views differ? Which do you find more plausible?

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, ethical claims are equivalent to psychological claims.

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 maintains that moral statements are expressions of emotion.

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, ethical philosophy consists of:

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, ethical concepts are:

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." -What does Ayer find attractive about utilitarianism and subjectivism? What objections does he raise for each of these theories?

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, intuition is a reliable way of obtaining moral knowledge.

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 view, evaluative claims are:

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, some ethical statements are true.