So I do think there is a positive ethical view there. It has stoic aspects. Well, I think that is very controversial. I think there are two possible interpretations. One is that what his later work does is deny the relevance of philosophy to ground our ethical discourse.
Philosophy leaves everything alone.
It simply describes the language games that we play. And you could take this in two ways. You can take this in a very conservative way to be saying, in effect, that everything is all right the way it is, that there are not any philosophical problems in ethics. There may be practical problems in ethics, but philosophers have nothing to contribute to that, at least not as philosophers or those who seek foundations. As reflective human beings, we have a great deal to contribute, but that is another matter.