system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Arguments for ethics in the face of logical positivism?

I am a student of philosophy and often encounter people(often of a scientific mindset) who make use of arguments based in logical positivism to reject ethics overall. Although I do not agree with the logical positivist view that only empirical answers are worthwhile I cannot find a argument completely capable of combating this view which remains free from criticism that shows it to be less reasonable than the positivist view. If you have any insight here please share it. I must confess that this is an incredibly distressing issue for me and I honestly don't know what to do if I cannot find a logical response.
gpt
Historically, the logical positivists didn't necessarily "reject ethics overall". For example, AJ Ayer argued for a non-cognitivist metaethics. Many members of the Vienna Circle were politically active and were Marxists. And having known many people "of a scientific mindset" (I take it that you mean science fans or students of various kinds), most do not know what logical positivism is, and do not espouse, i.e., a verification theory of meaning.

It would be helpful if you could tell us a bit more about what you have in mind.