Friday October 11th, 1912: The Cambridge University Michaelmas term begins.
Russell’s paper ‘The Essence of Religion’ had recently appeared in the October issue of *The Hibbert Journal* (http://archive.org/details/hibbertjournal07londuoft). LW has read it and detests it, and this leads to the first of a number of painful talks with Russell, LW’s mood now being more fierce and critical than formerly (McGuinness, p.108). Russell writes to Ottoline that LW feels that Russell had, in this article, betrayed ‘the gospel of exactness’. Russell’s impression is that LW thinks he had ‘wantonly used words vaguely’ and that ‘such things are too intimate for print’. Russell also records that he minds LW’s negative reaction ‘very much’, since he half agreed with him (McGuinness, p.109).This seems relevant to my feeling that Wittgenstein would have been against much, or even all, work in moral philosophy. Even if it's possible to avoid the vagueness he apparently detested, there is still the problem of things too intimate for print. Of course this is very early in Wittgenstein's career, but I don't know how much his view of such things changed.
And if his main objection to Wittgensteinian moral (or related) philosophy would have been that it dealt with material too intimate for print, then this does not seem to detract from its being Wittgensteinian.