David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philo 5 (2):123-142 (2002)
Intrinsic goodness is a non-Ielational property, in that the worth of an intrinsically good thing does not consist in it standing in a beneficial relationship to anyone. Except for the non-relational intrinsic goodness, which if it exists must be acknowledged by all (rational) beings, the only relational good we humans can logically and plausibly deem good is the “human-related” good. Thus, only these two options exist: from our human viewpoint, either all good things are human-related goods, or some good things are also intrinsically good. Those theories that reject intrinsic goodness. and that declare that the only kind of good things there can be are the human-related goods, are all forms of feeling-consequentialism. if the (two) “default arguments” could refute all feeling-consequentialisms, they would thereby refute theories that deny the very possibility of intrinsic goodness. Hence they would establish that, so long as a theory holds that some things are indeed good, it must also hold that there exist (also) intrinsically good things. The default arguments do show that utilitarian calculations cannot account for all goodness, since no linkage exists between goodness and pleasure. But some “positive feelings” (let them be X, Y, and Z) can be inextricably linked to what is good. Hence theories that define the good in terms of X, Y. and Z, are not amenable to the criticisms that utilitarianism is. Thus, the default arguments do not establish the impossibility of there being a (non-utilitarian feeling-consequentialist) theory, which acknowledges only human-related good things, and denies intrinsic goodness altogether. The tenability of such a stance has not been ruled out. Moore’s inability to accept the consequences of things having intrinsic worth, further betrays the implausibility of the very concept of intrinsic value
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
C. L. Sheng & Harrison F. H. Lee (2008). On G. E. Moore's View of Hedonistic Utilitarianism. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 10:277-287.
Justin Klocksiem (2011). Perspective-Neutral Intrinsic Value. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (3):323-337.
Steven G. Smith (2010). Intrinsic Value, Goodness, and the Appeals of Things. International Philosophical Quarterly 50 (2):167-181.
Delio (2009). Is Creation Really Good? American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 83 (1):3 - 22.
Robert Audi (2005). Intrinsic Value and Meaningful Life. Philosophical Papers 34 (3):331-355.
Julian Fink (2007). Is the Right Prior to the Good? South African Journal of Philosophy 26 (2):143-149.
Fred Feldman (1998). Hyperventilating About Intrinsic Value. Journal of Ethics 2 (4):339-354.
Amelie Oksenberg Rorty (2011). The Goodness of Searching: Good as What? Good for What? Good for Whom? In Ruth Weissbourd Grant (ed.), In Search of Goodness. University of Chicago Press.
Richard J. Arneson (2000). Perfectionism and Politics. Ethics 111 (1):37-63.
David Decosimo (2012). Intrinsic Goodness and Contingency, Resemblance and Particularity: Two Criticisms of Robert Adams's Finite and Infinite Goods. Studies in Christian Ethics 25 (4):418-441.
Francesco Orsi (2012). David Ross, Ideal Utilitarianism, and the Intrinsic Value of Acts. Journal for the History of Analytic Philosophy 1 (2).
John Nolt (2009). The Move From Is to Good in Environmental Ethics. Environmental Ethics 31 (2):135-154.
Stuart Rachels (2003). A Defense of Two Optimistic Claims in Ethical Theory. Philosophical Studies 112 (1):1-30.
A. F. Mackay (2005). Aristotle's Dilemma. Journal of Ethics 9 (3-4):533 - 549.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads5 ( #178,779 of 1,088,777 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,666 of 1,088,777 )
How can I increase my downloads?