[hist-analytic] Carnap and Grice and Absolutism
Roger Bishop Jones
rbj at rbjones.com
Mon Mar 1 12:04:44 EST 2010
Here's an observation I forgot to make earlier:
On Friday 26 Feb 2010 00:48, Jlsperanza at aol.com wrote:
>I enjoyed your opinion that Carnap would have joined in a
>game of 'deontics'.
I should mention that the rules I talked about in this
connection were rules giving the meanings of moral terms,
(these would be L-rules, as well as rules to capture any
moral principles (M-rules?) which are not then analytic).
The effect of this is that if Carnap did accept this
application of his scientific method outside its intended
sphere of operation, he would be able to engage in moral
reasoning as a utilitarian (for example) as well as
indulging in deontics.
Strictly speaking, according to his delimitation of scope he
would only be able to affirm the L-truths thus arising, and of
the M-truths (supposing we call them that) he would have to
confine himself to the observation that they are M-truths of
the relevant languages. (He has to step up into the
metalanguage). The situation parallels that in the
However, I confess that this is highly speculative.
I am extrapolating his methods into application areas he did
not entertain, and imagining that he could be persuaded that
this is a reasonable application of his analytic methods.
I would be surprised if he could not have been persuaded
that there is more logic in moral discourse than is
consistent with its interpretation as no more than
expressions of emotion.
More information about the hist-analytic