04.02.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

ETHICAL <strong>THE</strong>ORY SURVEYED 389<br />

since it is a tautology. Thus the sentence, "Wh<strong>at</strong> is approved<br />

of by me is wh<strong>at</strong> is approved of by me" cannot<br />

mean the same as the sentence, "good is wh<strong>at</strong> is approved<br />

of by me". Therefore, good does not mean the same as<br />

wh<strong>at</strong> is approved of by me. By similar methods it can be<br />

shown th<strong>at</strong> the meaning of good cannot be exactly equ<strong>at</strong>ed<br />

with the meaning of any other word.<br />

Th<strong>at</strong> the Subjectivist Methods of Meeting Objections<br />

are Uns<strong>at</strong>isfactory. (i) HUME'S METHOD. Sub-<br />

jectivists have endeavoured in various ways<br />

to meet the<br />

difficulties to which I have referred. Uneasy <strong>at</strong> the suggestion<br />

th<strong>at</strong> they are making the difference between good<br />

and bad purely one of taste good is th<strong>at</strong> which I happen<br />

to approve of, if you happen to approve of something<br />

different, then th<strong>at</strong> is good for you; good, therefore,<br />

means only "good for me" or "good for you" they<br />

have endeavoured to modify the extreme subjectivist<br />

position by the introduction of some objective test.<br />

One such endeavour, th<strong>at</strong> of Hume, was mentioned in<br />

the last chapter. By a right action, Hume says, we mean<br />

one of which most men approve. This is not a purely<br />

subjectivist position, for it does not make the distinction<br />

between right and wrong purely a m<strong>at</strong>ter of taste; it makes<br />

of those<br />

it a m<strong>at</strong>ter of fact. If, on this view, the majority<br />

who consider an action X feel an emotion of approval<br />

for it, then X is right; if not, not. This is to reduce the<br />

difference between right and wrong to a question of<br />

st<strong>at</strong>istics: we decide the issue by counting heads. Now it<br />

is, I think, clear th<strong>at</strong> wh<strong>at</strong>ever may be the true account<br />

of the m<strong>at</strong>ter, this theory must be wrong. Wh<strong>at</strong> I mean<br />

to assert, when I say of an action th<strong>at</strong> it is<br />

right, is no doubt<br />

highly controversial; but I am perfectly<br />

certain th<strong>at</strong> ]<br />

do not mean to assert th<strong>at</strong> I believe th<strong>at</strong> a bare majority<br />

of those who consider it would be found to approve o;<br />

it. I conclude th<strong>at</strong> endeavours made on these lines tc<br />

meet the objections brought against Subjectivism an<br />

unsuccessful.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!