Ethical foundations of the left

[Ken Hanly]

Positivists did not deny the existence of "ethical" sentences but they did
deny they were true or false that is propositions and so they did in that
sense deny ethics as traditionally understood. I thought the classic
statement of the lp view on ethics was the emotive theory as exemplified in
A.J. Ayer's chapter on ethics in Language, Truth, or Logic. The emotive
theory claims that ethical statements such as "Murder is wrong" are
expressions of feelings and attempts to evoke similar feelings in others.
Roughly the foregoing expresses disapproval of murder and attempts to evoke
the same feelings in others. Carnap however had a  command or imperative
theory of such sentences. So the sentence would say: Do not steal. This is
certainly prescriptive. Schlick adopted a form of utilitariansm. Later
philosophers such as R.M. Hare stressed the presecriptive aspects of such
statements. Stevenson certainly had a much subtler emotive theory than Ayer.

Cheers, Ken Hanly
.
>
> Btw, the positivists did not "deny the existence of ethics"; they just
> interpreted ethical statements as presciptive. The classical statement is
> C.L. Stevenson's still-wonderful Ethics and Language. My dissertation
> advisor Allen Gibbard--no positivist! (he has written important papers in
> grand metaphysics)--has a brilliant restatement of prescriptivism in his
> book Wise Choices, Apt Feelings.
>
> I think it is odd to describe Rawls as a "dissenting utilitarian." He's
not
> a utilitarian of any sort.
>
> I have not read Singer's "Darwinian left," although I have read other of
his
> books, such as Practical Ethics. I find his flat headed utilitarianism
> rather unpersuasive, although his applied discussions are generally
> interesting and sensitive.
>
> --jks
>
> >From: "Luke Benjamin Weiger" <lweiger at umich.edu>
> >Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> >To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> >Subject: Re: Ethical foundations of the left
> >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:19:31 -0700
> >
> >A Rawlsian contractualist, for instance.  Sorry if my wording was
> >imprecise.
> >Scouring the archives a couple of days ago, I found out that you have
> >positivist leanings.  Does that mean that you deny the existence of
ethics
> >because there is no plausible test for verification?
> >
> >-- Luke
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
> >To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> >Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 11:35 AM
> >Subject: Re: Ethical foundations of the left
> >
> >
> > > What's a utilitarian dissenter? --jks
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "Luke Benjamin Weiger" <lweiger at umich.edu>
> > > >Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> > > >To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> > > >Subject: Ethical foundations of the left
> > > >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 12:20:47 -0700
> > > >
> > > >Has anyone on this list-serv read "A Darwinian Left" by Peter Singer?
> >Any
> > > >fellow consequentialists (or utilitarian dissenters) out there?
> > > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>