What is your answer?
Some philosophers think that we can prove moral truths like "Racism is wrong" by referring to our personal feelings, or the attitudes of our society, or the results of the action in terms of pleasure and pain.
Ayer rejects these view because he thinks that
{ 1 } - there is no way to know empirically about our personal feelings, or the attitudes of our society, or the results of the action in terms of pleasure and pain.
{ 2 } - we know the wrongness of racism directly, through our moral intuitions.
{ 3 } - these view presume that we can define "wrong" in empirical terms.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
Some philosophers think that we can prove moral truths like "Racism is wrong" by referring to our personal feelings, or the attitudes of our society, or the results of the action in terms of pleasure and pain.
Ayer rejects these view because he thinks that
{ 1 } - there is no way to know empirically about our personal feelings, or the attitudes of our society, or the results of the action in terms of pleasure and pain.
{ 2 } - we know the wrongness of racism directly, through our moral intuitions.
{ 3 } - these view presume that we can define "wrong" in empirical terms.
Ayer would say that we CAN know such things.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
Some philosophers think that we can prove moral truths like "Racism is wrong" by referring to our personal feelings, or the attitudes of our society, or the results of the action in terms of pleasure and pain.
Ayer rejects these view because he thinks that
{ 1 } - there is no way to know empirically about our personal feelings, or the attitudes of our society, or the results of the action in terms of pleasure and pain.
{ 2 } - we know the wrongness of racism directly, through our moral intuitions.
{ 3 } - these view presume that we can define "wrong" in empirical terms.
Ayer rejects this view.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is correct!
Some philosophers think that we can prove moral truths like "Racism is wrong" by referring to our personal feelings, or the attitudes of our society, or the results of the action in terms of pleasure and pain.
Ayer rejects these view because he thinks that
{ 1 } - there is no way to know empirically about our personal feelings, or the attitudes of our society, or the results of the action in terms of pleasure and pain.
{ 2 } - we know the wrongness of racism directly, through our moral intuitions.
{ 3 } - these view presume that we can define "wrong" in empirical terms.
Ayer rejects empirical definitions of moral terms. "Wrong" can't mean "socially disapproved," for example, since it's consistent to say that some wrong actions aren't socially disapproved.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
the end