Class Notes (837,998)
United States (325,251)
Philosophy (20)
PHIL 201 (20)
James Scow (11)
Lecture

Ayer and Anscome

3 Pages
112 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Philosophy
Course
PHIL 201
Professor
James Scow
Semester
Fall

Description
Ayer-language, truth, logic. Ayer asks, where do we put ethics?  Ayer looks at definitions of ethics. He categorizes different assertions that are made in ethics (p. 485 2 collumn). One of those assertions would be a definition of ethics, an ethical term, one would be a moral judgement. These are the different kinds of things that can be said in ethics. He says well what is the logic in these statements? What are we actually asserting or asking? The grammer of these statements. The meaning of the statements? o P. 486 1 column, starting with the definitions o Define concepts by such things as happiness, or appealings of approval. He would classify this kind of ethics as naturalistic. (similar to utilitarinism-in terms of happiness, humes-approval). Both of these involve naturalistic concepts. Happiness is psychological and approval from the moral sense. Naturalistic ethics. He distinguishes them asn subjective and utilitarianism. Subjective-hume. Utilitarian-benthem and mill. What he says about is, hes criticizing the definitions. He gives an open question style argument to show why these definitions cant work, utilizing moores technique. Its poiting out it wouldn’t be self contradictory to say that (p. 486 2 collum) what is generally approved of is not right. If that’s not self contradictory to say that, than that definition is not correct. That says that whats right is what is approved of. That would have to be self contradicoty if it were definitional. It would be self contradictory to deny it if it were defenitional. Its not self contradictory to deny it, therefore its not definitional. o Same thng could be done with the greatest happiness. its not contradictory to say that which produces the greateset happiness is not right, that’s not contradictory. Who knows if this will turn out to be true or false, but its not contradictory. And it would be contradictory if it were definitional. o Kinda like saying a correct definition of bachelor is unmarried man. To deny that would say there are some married bachelors. That would be self contradictory. o This is his point of arguing against the defenitions: So when you take a legitimate definition and you consider the negation of it, your getting a contradiction of it. But your not getting contradictions in these cases, so these are not legitimate defnitions. In conclusion, he doesn’t think there is much hope to naturalistic approaches to ethics.  P. 487 absolutist approach to defining ethical terms. This is probably the intuitionists, Prichard and ross. These are the ones who attempt to do ethics using the faculty of intuition. o According to ayer, the problem with this approach is that it is a method that is not testable. It is not a method that would be recognized as valid in the scientific relm because its all going on in the head. Its intuition. We don’t have any way of verifying what somebody is saying is true by intuition is indeed true. Therefore its not a scientific basis for defining an ethical term. So he rejects the absolutists too.  He says that in conclusion, they are really not terms to define in the first place. This is a bit of a drastic conclusion. Just because the above definitions don’t work doesn’t mean there is no definition. he concludes that these ethical terms are pseudo. Pseudonym: false name. therefore, these are pseudo concepts, which means they are no factual content. That is his conclusion. o P. 488 first column--So for instance, when you say you acted wrongly in stealing that money, what actually are you asserting content wise? Ayer says no more than simply saying you stole that money. The acting wrongly part of this assertion is no more than dressing it up, conveying that you disapprove. But then if you say stealing money is wrong, well your really just saying “stealing money”. You’ve just s
More Less

Related notes for PHIL 201

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit