His main argument against their view was what has come to be known as the “open-question argument,” though he actually stated in two slightly different ways. Consider a particular naturalist claim, such as that “x is good” is equivalent to “x is pleasant” or “x is pleasure.”If this claim were true, he argued, the judgement “Pleasure is good” would be equivalent to “Pleasure is pleasure,” yet surely someone who asserts the former means to express more than that uninformative tautology. Alternatively, if this naturalist claim were true, “x is pleasant but x is not good” would be self-contradictory. Once it was established that x is pleasant, the question whether it is good would then be closed, or not worth considering, whereas, he argued, it remains open. The same argument can be mounted against any other naturalist proposal: even if we have determined that something is what we desire to desire or is more evolved, the question whether it is good remains open, in the sense of not being settled by the meaning of the word “good".
Answering this question depends on a specific evaluative context.So, what is good? — Shawn
This might not be true of bad. For instance: I think we know what is bad for our species (i.e. harmful, deprivative, abject, traumatic) to intentionally do to ourselves or one another either by action or inaction (e.g. Confucius, Hillel the Elder, Epicurus ... Philippa Foot).G.E. Moore, in his Principia Ethica has claimed that good is a simple and indefinable.
Good has no fixed referent, but the meaning itself holds constant.Answering this question depends on a specific evaluative context. — 180 Proof
That which is willed — bert1
"Good" is an adjective denoting that a thing that is good is a thing that is advantageous and pleasant and helpful and accommodating OR at least three at the same time and in the same respect of the aforementioned qualifiers.
I invite examples that debunk this definition. — god must be atheist
That which is willed — bert1
When a speaker declares x is good, they are marking their approval of x. — hypericin
there are things that can be all those three and yet not be good. — Shawn
↪Shawn Whatever evaluative context you choose to specify e.g. ethics, aesthetics, economics, religion, engineering / building trades, etc the answer to "what is good?" will vary accordingly. — 180 Proof
Seems all the more complex since good as a simple is defined by circular definitions. Again we have this relational stuff arising out of a simple. — Shawn
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.