GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

BTHICS
part of the writer? It is certainly not an oversight, and
I doubt whether it is culpable; for it is extremely difficult
to see how it is to be avoided.
There are two reasons why words such as those which
I have just cited cannot be defined, at any rate at the
beginning of an enquiry. Of these -the first will be given
here; the second falls into place more conveniently in a
later discussion. 1 The first reason is that the iMfrniipg
that one assigns to such general terms as "good" and
"right" is determined, as is one's view as to what are
the central questions of ethics, by one's general ethical
position. If, for example, one is a utilitarian, one holds
that a right action is one that has the best possible conse-
quences; if an intuitionist, that it is one of which a special
and unique faculty, sometimes known as conscience,
sometimes as the moral sense, approves. If one takes an
objectivist view of ethics, one holds that the word "good"
stands for an ultimate principle which is a real and in-
but not created
dependent factor in the universe, recognized
by the mind ofman; ifa subjectivist, that "good " is merely
the name with which human beings seek to dignify the
things and institutions of which they happen to approve,
and to encourage the performance of actions which are
to their advantage. The difficulty is, then, that, while
the meanings of the terms used in ethical discussion vary
with the conclusions reached by the discussion, the terms
must be used in order that the conclusions may be
reached. Even, then, when the two parties to a controversy
about ethics are not concerned with different subjects,
and ate not, without being aware of the fact, giving answers
to different questions, it is exceedingly difficult for them
to employ words in senses which do not beg the questions
which the words are being used to discuss. For the meaning
* '
which a word such as
right " or " ' '
good is used in ethical
discussion to express, can only be 'its legitimate meaning,
if the conclusions of the discussion are valid. Similarly,
the conclusions of the discussion are only valid, if the terms
* See bdow, pp, 166-171.