Doubts about ordinary language in ethics

Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 3 (1-4):270 – 277 (1960)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Many writers assume one of the major functions (if not the major function) of ethical theory is to analyze the “ordinary language”; of moral discourse. This paper argues that different social groups develop quite different concepts of values; that there are many “ordinary languages.”; What analysts often in practice arc concerned with is middle-class ethical usage. In addition, it is argued that widely accepted moral usages may be incorrect because they are based on faulty empirical generalizations, pre-scientific opinions, or socially-determined prejudices. “Ordinary language”; needs to be viewed critically, therefore, rather than to be assumed as correct.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-03-08

Downloads
14 (#968,362)

6 months
2 (#1,240,909)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Ordinary language.Gilbert Ryle - 1953 - Philosophical Review 62 (2):167-186.
On the verification of statements about ordinary language.Benson Mates - 1958 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 1 (1-4):161 – 171.
Philosophy for philosophers.Norman Malcolm - 1951 - Philosophical Review 60 (3):329-340.
Philosophers and ordinary language.Roderick M. Chisholm - 1951 - Philosophical Review 60 (3):317-328.
Ordinary language and common sense.A. D. Woozley - 1953 - Mind 62 (247):301-312.

View all 12 references / Add more references