As an empiricist, Ayer holds that all genuine knowledge is based on sense experience.
Some philosophers object that "Racism is wrong" is genuine knowledge but not based on sense experience. In response, Ayer would say that "Racism is wrong"
As an empiricist, Ayer holds that all genuine knowledge is based on sense experience.
Some philosophers object that "Racism is wrong" is genuine knowledge but not based on sense experience. In response, Ayer would say that "Racism is wrong"
He doesn't say this. He thinks that moral claims are neither true nor false.
As an empiricist, Ayer holds that all genuine knowledge is based on sense experience.
Some philosophers object that "Racism is wrong" is genuine knowledge but not based on sense experience. In response, Ayer would say that "Racism is wrong"
He doesn't say this.
As an empiricist, Ayer holds that all genuine knowledge is based on sense experience.
Some philosophers object that "Racism is wrong" is genuine knowledge but not based on sense experience. In response, Ayer would say that "Racism is wrong"
Ayer admits that there is no way to prove or disprove "Racism is wrong" by appealing to sense experience.
As an empiricist, Ayer holds that all genuine knowledge is based on sense experience.
Some philosophers object that "Racism is wrong" is genuine knowledge but not based on sense experience. In response, Ayer would say that "Racism is wrong"
He sees "Racism is wrong" as an emotional exclamation (like "Boo on racism!") -- not a truth claim that can be known to be true. On his view, there are no moral truths and there is no moral knowledge.