[lit-ideas] The Neutrality of Meta-Ethics (Was: Analytic Philosophy as Anti-Humanist
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 20:10:19 EST
L. K. Helm was elaborating on the idea of analytic philosophy as
anti-humanist.
What I do consider, upon reflection, is that within the corridors of
analytic philosophy, in the golden age of R. M. Hare, at least, the word
'moral' was
anathema.
One was supposed to do _meta-ethics_, never ethics. Since as Grice
recognises in "The Conception of Value" footnote, Oxonians could not conceive
themselves as having the _authority_ to moralise. They would accept at most a
sort of
individualistic moralising alla Strawson in "Freedom and Resentment".
The things are changing now.
Incidentally, this reflection I had upon reading the Loeb I received today:
Juvenal, SATURAE. One of the saturae is entitled in the translation as
"Moralists Without Morals". It's very degenrate, but for some reason, got me
thinking on R. M. Hare, and Helm's idea that analytic philosophy is _possibly_
pretty 'anti-humanistic' in that Erasmus would make Hare _vomit_.
Cheers,
JL
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Other related posts:
