Deck 18: A.J.Ayer

Question 1

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?

Answer 1

No Answer

Question 2

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?

Answer 2

No Answer

Question 3

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?

Answer 3

No Answer

Question 4

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?

Question 5

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?

Question 6

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?

Question 7

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?

Question 8

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) definitions of ethical terms.
B) propositions describing the phenomena of moral experience.
C) exhortations to moral virtue.
D) all of the above.

Question 9

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) analytic.
B) intuitively known.
C) self-evident.
D) empirically verifiable.

Question 10

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) there are many things besides happiness that have intrinsic value.
B) it fails to account for the value of individual rights.
C) it is not self-contradictory to say that it is sometimes wrong to do what causes the greatest happiness.
D) all of the above.

Question 11

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) determined by the happiness brought about by the action in question.
B) determined by the nature of people's feelings.
C) determined by whether rational people would agree with it.
D) not empirically calculable.

Question 12

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) give an analysis of ethical terms.
B) make no ethical pronouncements.
C) show what is the category to which all ethical pronouncements belong.
D) all of the above.

Question 13

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) what seems intuitively certain to one person might seem false to another.
B) we do not have intuitions about the most important ethical questions.
C) intuition is often cited to defend immoral policies.
D) all of the above.

Question 14

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) unanalyzable.
B) mere pseudo-concepts.
C) irreducible to empirical concepts.
D) all of the above.

Question 15

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) descriptive.
B) prescriptive.
C) emotive.
D) logical.

Question 16

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) statements of empirical fact.
B) assertions of feeling.
C) expressions of feeling.
D) none of the above.

Question 17

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) frequently.
B) rarely.
C) never.
D) only because they do not realize that values are subjective.

Question 18

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) they endorse tolerance and respect.
B) they construe ethical assertions as ordinary empirical assertions.
C) they allow that ethical claims are neither true nor false.
D) they construe ethical claims as expressions of emotion.

Question 19

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) people approve of different things.
B) it does not fit our moral intuitions.
C) it is selfish.
D) one can approve of what is bad without contradiction.

Question 20

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) stimulate action.
B) stimulate belief.
C) stimulate imagination.
D) all of the above.

Question 21

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) "Stealing makes people unhappy."
B) "Stealing should be punished."
C) "I disapprove of stealing."
D) "Boo for stealing!!!"

Question 22

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) disputes about the nature of the good.
B) disputes about what the other person is feeling.
C) disputes about the facts of the case.
D) disputes about what our duties are.

Question 23

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.

Question 24

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.

Question 25

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.

Question 26

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.

Question 27

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.

Question 28

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.

Question 29

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.

Question 30

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

Question 31

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.

Question 32

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.