Hi There
On 27 May 99, at 5:44, Struan Hellier wrote:
> Horse:
> "As Struan has mentioned Moore's position regarding good, and
> Moore's position is solidly emotivist, I'd like to say something about it.
> When Moore states: "If I am asked "What is good", my answer is that good
> is good and there's an end of the matter. Or if I am asked "How can good
> be defined?", my answer is that it cannot be defined and that is all I
> have to say about it." he is making an emotivist claim."
>
> Moore's position is not emotivist at all, it is intuitionist. They are two
> entirely separate theories distinguished by their respective position upon
> cognitivism in ethical language.
Aaarrggh! I can only put the above down to carelessness. I was
earlier trying to construct an argument comparing the extremes of
Intuitionism and Emotivism and possible convergence, which I wasn't
happy with, and managed to leave the wrong term in the above
paragraph - not once but twice!! Apologies for the error/carelessness.
For emotivist read Intuitionist.
To compound the above I also missed out entirely the answer to
Struans third question - so here they are again, this time complete
although nowhere near final:
1. Is direct everyday experience synonymous with intuition?
In terms of DQ or the Quality Event - Yes. DQ is, as many have
pointed out, 'mystic' in nature and is not defineable, scientific,
mathematical or reducible. This does not mean however, that it is
necessarily non-empirical - which is obvious.
2. Can we ascertain what is good from empirical evidence?.
In terms of SQ and beginning with the basic premiss that "the
physical order of the universe is also the moral order of the universe" -
Yes. It is reducible, defineable and discernible.
3. If we can, then how.?
I think it is valid to propose that our knowledge or sense of Good is
emergent from the interaction of our senses, innate knowledge, prior
experience and current situation. To an extent this is Situationist and
denies an absolute Good - but seems to fit better with the idea of
many Goods. I'm not sure if is possible to be certain that any
knowledge we possess is gained purely from empirical evidence.
4. How does 2 and 3 square with non-naturalism?
As above they are two aspects of the same thing. They are not
necessarily contradictory - given their fuzzy nature - and the fuzzy
nature of certain aspects of the MOQ.
I'll get to the rest of the argument in due course, as I want to give it
further thought, and post again later.
Apologies for my earlier carelessness.
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