Abstract
PROF. DINGLE1 has picked out of my essay a sentence which, given the definitions with which I was operating, is a tautologous expansion of the argument. He appears to have thought that it was intended as an empirical statement, and he denies that it actually is empirical. From this basis he proceeds to reject my opposition to the apriorist view of ethics on the grounds that the opposition is itself apriorist, since it is not based on observation. He even states that it has no application to experience, although it clearly implies that in making an ethical choice we should pay more attention to the probable effects of the alternative courses of action in relation to the scientifically ascertained direction of evolution than to our own or other people's ethical intuitions or any system of ethical rules, etc.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
