`Good,' `Doog,' and Naturalism in Ethics

Abstract

R M HARE HAS CLAIMED THAT ALL NATURALISTIC ETHICALTHEORIES ARE INCORRECT BECAUSE THEY FAIL TO TAKE ACCOUNT OFTHE COMMENDING FUNCTION OF ETHICAL TERMS. BUT HARE ASSUMESTHE POINT AT ISSUE BY SUPPOSING THAT NO DEFININGCHARACTERISTICS COULD THEMSELVES BE TAKEN AS COMMENDATORY.IF 'X IS GOOD' IS TAKEN TO MEAN 'AN INFORMED,DISINTERESTED, RATIONAL, NORMAL HUMAN SPECTATOR WOULDAPPROVE OF X', THEN THE DEFINIENS WOULD BE JUST ASCOMMENDATORY AS THE DEFINIENDUM.