Clarifying Logical Positivism

How does Logical Positivism deal with the Problem of Induction?

How does it deal with Ethical dilemmas?

How does the verification principle systematically justify itself without being empirical or tautological?

My original post for this topic was not at all clear. I want to clarify these questions because they pose common problems for logical positivism. I believe the Vienna circle demonstrates the unfortunate epitome of academia’s arrogance. Attempting at absolute description and prescription to solving all of philosophy forever, they have failed to deal with metaphysics and ethics. If anyone can offer a coherent response to which I will have no objections or further skepticism towards, it would be greatly appreciated.