Greetings,
Ken, I almost go along with Horse's definition but, being slightly worried about having the term
'things' in it (and of course the MoQ claims that good possesses 'things' rather than vice versa)
would phrase it thus:
Consider the statement, "A bachelor is an unmarried man." this is a closed question in that it is
self referential. The meaning of bachelor is inbuilt into the concept of being unmarried so I can't
ask, "I grant you that a bachelor is unmarried, but does he have a wife?" It doesn't make sense. Now
consider the statement, "Quality is good." To that I can legitimately respond, "Explain what you
mean by good," to which you might reply, "Quality is dynamic, value, power(?), quality, etc." Now I
might still ask the question, "I grant you that quality is dynamic/static/powerful etc, but is it
good?" The fact that I can ask that question without contradiction shows that quality does not
directly equate to good. According to Moore, then, any ethical statement which reduces good to
naturalistic terms (quality, happiness, virtue etc) is mistaken as it has committed the naturalistic
fallacy described above.
This is a genuine question I am asking here. If anyone can give me a satisfactory answer I will be
most grateful to them as I have been pondering this one for some time. An answer could also clarify
the ethical stance of the squad as a whole as, at the moment, naturalistic fallacies are flying left
right and centre without the problem being addressed.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:struan@shellier.freeserve.co.uk>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
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