SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (John Medaille)
Date:
Tue Jan 9 14:13:16 2007
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
References:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (20 lines)
David Andrews wrote:
>Whatever the influence of G.E. Moore on twentieth century philosophy or
>Keynes, it is worse than a mischaracterization of Moore to say, as does John
>Medaille, that
>
>"Moore's "Principia Ethica" (1903)  . . . promulgated the doctrine known as
>"emotivism," that is, the idea that any ethical statement could only be the
>expression of a personal preference."
>
>"Emotivism" does not make even a hint of an appearance in  _Principia
>Ethica_. Moore's argument was quite to the contrary. He believed that
>goodness was an objective property.


There is no meaningful difference between Moore's 
intuitionism and Ayer's emotivism. For both the good is indefinable.


John C. Medaille

ATOM RSS1 RSS2