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

ETHICS
how did the distinction between good and right, on the
one handy and expedient and pleasant and useful, on the
other, ever come to be made? There is not the slightest
doubt that in ordinary life we do habitually make this
distinction. "This," we say, "is what I should like to do,
because it is pleasant; but that is what I ought to do,
because it is right/' Or we say "X is a pleasantcr companion,
but he is not such a good man as Y." If what
is good or right is, in the last resort, exhaustively
analysable into what is expedient or pleasant or useful, it
is impossible to explain how the distinction came to be
made. It seems reasonable, then, to suppose that the words
"good" and "right" stand for concepts which we specifically
distinguish from those denoted "pleasant", "expedient", and "useful".
by the words
(d) THAT THE MEANING OF THE WORD GOOD is
NOT THE SAME AS THAT OF ANY OTHER WORD.
It is not difficult to show by a logical argument that
the word "good" has not precisely the same as any other word.
meaning
(i) Let us suppose that I hold that the word "good"
means the same as the word "pleasant", or the word
"expedient", or the word "useful", or the words "what
is approved of by me". Then there will be nothing in the
concept "good" beyond "pleasant", or "expedient", or
"useful", or "approved of by me". Therefore, when the
word "good" occurs in a sentence, I can substitute one
of these other words without change of meaning.
(ii) Let us now consider such a statement as, "good is
what is approved of by me". This statement, whether it
is true or false, is at least meaningful, and being meaningful
it is discussible. I am in fact discussing it at the moment.
(iii) Adopting the conclusion of (i), I will now write
for the word "good" in the sentence "good is what is
approved of by me" die words "approved of by me". The
sentence then reads, "What is approved of by me is what
is approved of by me." This sentence is not discussible,