Abstract
It has just come to my notice that Mr. Archibald, in his article (published in 1959)1, represented me as thinking that there is nothing but normative metaphysics and logic , and again Little argues that all systems which are 'about anything' are ethical. Since anyone who thought or argued this would, in my opinion, be suffering from some kind of religious insanity, or paranoia, I very much wish to show him to be mistaken. How does Archibald get to the above statements from what I wrote ? He argues that my sentence, The subject [welfare economics] is one about which nothing interesting can be said without value judgments, for the reason that we take a moral interest in welfare and happiness , confirms that there can, in my opinion, be no positive scientific enquiry into anything in which we take a social interest. Let me paraphrase the logic of this confirmation :
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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
