 Bertrand Russell Quotes 366 |
Many ethical writers maintain that "ought" is an ultimate and unanalysable concept, of which no verbal definition is possible. That is to say, it, or some equivalent, must be part of the minimum vocabulary’- of ethics ; perhaps it may even be the only indefinable ethical term. Other writers have offered various definitions. Finally, it might be maintained that there is no such concept, that “you ought to do this” must be interpreted as “I approve of your doing this” (where approval is a specific emotion), and that the pretence of objectivity in my statement is a fraudulent endeavour to give legislative authority to my own wishes. Is there any way of deciding between these different views?
Source: Bertrand Russell: Human Society in Ethics and Politics, (1954), chapter 5
More info.:https://russell-j.com/cool/47T-0603.htm