Does the Failure of Utilitarianism Justify a Belief in Intrinsic Value?

Philo 5 (2):123-142 (2002)
Abstract
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)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,074
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
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.
Julian Fink (2007). Is the Right Prior to the Good? South African Journal of Philosophy 26 (2):143-149.
A. F. Mackay (2005). Aristotle's Dilemma. Journal of Ethics 9 (3-4):533 - 549.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2011-01-09

Total downloads

10 ( #146,756 of 1,101,576 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

5 ( #59,635 of 1,101,576 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.