Hi Ken
On 24 May 99, at 17:49, Clark wrote:
> Struan,
> Would you explain what you mean by the "naturalistic fallacy" so that I
> can think about your question. Ken
I'm sure Struan will come up with a better explanation of the
Naturalistic Fallacy but here's some initial info.
In the Principia Ethica, G.E.Moore states that most moralists (moral
philosophers) are or have been Naturalists and are guilty of a
common fallacy. That is, that the property of goodness is confused
with either the things that possess that property or with some other
property that that good things possess.
If good is identical with some other property (e.g. love) then to ask "Is
love Good" is apparently unintelligible because it asks "Is Good
Good" or "Is Love Love".
>From reading through some of the literature on this, there is also the
question of deriving "ought" from "is" statements. The two seem
intimately bound together.
Moores main gripe with this seems to be that by equating good to
those things that possess goodness or with some property that good
things possess devalues the idea of good.
Like I said, Struan can probably explain this better than me but I
thought I'd lob a few initial thoughts in to try and get things started.
Horse
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:59 BST