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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
NATURE, 148, 411 (1941).
Dingle, H., J. Aristotelian Soc., 122 (1939).
NATURE, 148, 342 (1941).
NATURE, 148, 411 (1941).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
WADDINGTON, C. [Letter to Editors]. Nature 148, 534–535 (1941). https://doi.org/10.1038/148534b0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/148534b0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.