• Shawn
    13.2k
    G.E. Moore, in his Principia Ethica has claimed that good is a simple and indefinable.

    As per @Banno, definitions are circular.

    So, what is good?
  • Banno
    24.7k
    what is good?Shawn

    Well, the good stuff, obviously...
  • deletedmemberbcc
    208
    OP is referring to Moore's "open question" argument. More background:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-question_argument
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moore-moral/

    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".

    - "Moore's Moral Philosophy", SEP
  • Shawn
    13.2k


    But, how is stuff related to what is good?
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    What about this:

    "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.

    Please don't juxtapose something that is good now but will be not good later, or something that is good for Mr. X but not good for Ms. Y. Those violate the rule in the definition, "at the same time and in the same respect."
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    So, what is good?Shawn
    Answering this question depends on a specific evaluative context.

    G.E. Moore, in his Principia Ethica has claimed that good is a simple and indefinable.
    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).
  • Banno
    24.7k
    But, how is stuff related to what is good?Shawn

    Well, the stuff that is related to what is good, is the good stuff.

    How will you respond to 's specification? Think Socrates. Use the open question.
  • Shawn
    13.2k


    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.

    Is that how it works?
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    Answering this question depends on a specific evaluative context.180 Proof

    So, good is context dependent?
  • Shawn
    13.2k


    I set up the stage, so I give the floor to you. :cool:
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    What meaning isn't?
  • hypericin
    1.6k
    When a speaker declares x is good, they are marking their approval of x. Moreover, they are asserting that this approval springs from something intrinsic to x itself. If I say "Sally is good", I don't merely like Sally, according to me Sally is so constituted as to be intrinsically liked.

    Answering this question depends on a specific evaluative context.180 Proof
    Good has no fixed referent, but the meaning itself holds constant.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    Is it that "Sally is good" because you prefer her or do you "prefer Sally" because she is good? :chin:
  • bert1
    2k
    So, what is good?Shawn

    That which is willed
  • hypericin
    1.6k
    The latter. Otherwise, "prefer" or "like" would be used, not "good".
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.1k
    That which is willedbert1

    This is "good" as a noun, "the good", the thing desired, or the objective. Taking "good" from being an adjective, or even adverb, and making it a noun, as you've done here, is what makes "good" intelligible.
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    "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

    It seems to me and Banno, that what the open ended argument entails is that there are things that can be all those three and yet not be good. So, it seems there's room to provide more context here.
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    What meaning isn't?180 Proof

    But, according to Moore, "good" is a simple. A simple is a thing that has no parts. Yet, we often use the term "good" in ways that make it seem as if it were something more than a simple.

    Why is that, @Banno, if you care to mention...
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    Good has no fixed referent, but the meaning itself holds constanthypericin

    @Banno, this is surely something in your ballpark.
  • Banno
    24.7k
    The good is...
    That which is willedbert1

    Moore supposes that one might wonder if that which is willed is that which is good; and moreover, that this question makes sense. Yet if being willed were nothing more than being good, how could one question that equivalence?

    That is, the notion of what is willed is distinct from the notion of what is good.

    That is, one can consistently conceive of someone willing what is not good.
  • Banno
    24.7k
    When a speaker declares x is good, they are marking their approval of x.hypericin

    Moore supposes that one might wonder if that which is approved of is that which is good; and moreover, that this question makes sense. Yet if being approved of were nothing more than being good, how could one question that equivalence?

    That is, the notion of what is approved off is distinct from the notion of what is good.

    That is, one can consistently conceive of someone approved off what is not good.
  • Shawn
    13.2k


    That is, the notion of what is willed is distinct from the notion of what is good.Banno

    Assuming @bert1 is a Kantian, does it follow that which is willed, is the good?
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    Reread my first post on this thread where I respond to Moore specifically (i.e. the open-question argument). As I point out, in ethics I think "defining good" is besides the point.
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    As I point out, in ethics I think "defining good" is besides the point.180 Proof

    I think I can see what your saying. In that, treating good in the excluded of what is bad?
  • Shawn
    13.2k


    Oh sorry, I misunderstood you.

    So, you say that it's dependent of the evaluative context. Do you have any criteria to propose? Mostly epistemic?
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    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.
  • Shawn
    13.2k


    So, what's the consensus of the good in ethics? Moore proposed a form of consequentialism in terms of the good. Do you agree with him?
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    there are things that can be all those three and yet not be good.Shawn

    Never mind Kant and consensus and ethics and circularity of definition and stuff. Just give me one instance when three or four of my qualifyers are true but the quality is not good.

    You guys just talk and talk and talk and nobody thinks around here. I need just one frekkin' instance of a thing that debunks my definition.

    I am not saying that my definition is perfect. It may be, or it may not be. I don't know. But it must be accepted and all the other crap you people are talking about must be neglected until the definition gets debunked.

    That's the only thing I don't like about this site. If I say something and it's inconvenient, but valid, people simply ignore it and talk around it.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    ↪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

    I am not saying that what you stated there debunks my definition, but what you say may be a simple case of equivocation as defined by Aristotle.
  • deletedmemberbcc
    208
    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

    But I think that's Moore's contention: good can't be defined by or analyzed in terms of any other properties, good is a simple, sort of an atomic unit or fundamental building block of moral language and reasoning. Whether Moore is right about this is, of course, a different story.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.