Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T09:54:39.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Assessing Attempts at Moral Originality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Peter A. French
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Get access

Summary

In the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Wittgenstein remarks parenthetically, “Ethics and aesthetics are one and the same.” Within the structural framework he develops in the Tractatus, normative judgments cannot express propositions because there can be no value in the world of facts. Normative judgments are concerned with what “is higher” or what lies outside the accidental world of the facts. Consequently, there can be no normative facts, so normative judgments cannot be truth-apt. However, for Wittgenstein, the good or the bad exercise of the will “alters the limits of the world, not the facts, making it a different world for the happy man from the world of the unhappy man.” Ethics provides normative categories, such as good and bad, right and wrong, for assessing exercises of the will or the creations they produce. Aesthetics provides comparable categories for evaluating exercises of will (performances), creations, or works; but, it is generally held, it does so for altogether different reasons than ethics, hence, the provocative nature of Wittgenstein's remark.

Following Wittgenstein's lead, it would seem that ethics and aesthetics must either apply a different norm of correctness than the truth norm to assessments within their realms or adopt some version of an error theory to account for what in their assessments appear to be expressions of belief that have propositional content, a central claim identified with J. L. Mackie's account of ethics. Nishi Shah correctly describes the basis of Mackie's view with respect to moral discourse:

The objective purport of moral discourse requires that values be part of the fabric of the universe, but the universe, at least as it has been disclosed to us by the natural sciences, contains no such “queer” properties. Nor have the natural sciences disclosed any perceptual or other capacities that would allow us to detect the presence of such properties, even if they did exist.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×