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.

A <strong>THE</strong>ORY OF GOOD OR VALUE 419<br />

their own right; it is necessary, in short, th<strong>at</strong> some things<br />

should be really good, others really bad, some things<br />

really right and others really wrong* Objectivist theories<br />

assert or imply th<strong>at</strong> this is the case. On the assumption,<br />

then, th<strong>at</strong> some form of Objectivism is correct, I have<br />

tried to show th<strong>at</strong>, when any genuine ethical judgment<br />

is made, for example, the judgment th<strong>at</strong> quinine is good<br />

for a cold, the existence of something th<strong>at</strong> is considered<br />

to be ultim<strong>at</strong>ely valuable for its own sake and not as a<br />

means to something else, is implied.<br />

(2) Conclusion th<strong>at</strong> Since Ultim<strong>at</strong>e Values are Unique<br />

No Account Can Be Given of Them. Secondly,<br />

there is the conclusion th<strong>at</strong> wh<strong>at</strong>ever is ultim<strong>at</strong>ely valuable<br />

is unique, and th<strong>at</strong>, because it is unique, no account can<br />

be given of it. For the uniqueness of ultim<strong>at</strong>e values a<br />

number of reasons has been adduced. These reasons may be<br />

formul<strong>at</strong>ed in the type of argument which was instanced<br />

in the last chapter in criticism of subjcotivist theories of<br />

good. 1 This type of argument seeks to show th<strong>at</strong> the<br />

meaning of the word "good" and I am here using<br />

the word "good" to denote wh<strong>at</strong>ever is ultim<strong>at</strong>ely<br />

valuable in and for itself- cannot be equ<strong>at</strong>ed with the<br />

meaning of any other concept. If, for example, we arc<br />

told th<strong>at</strong> pleasure is good or is the Good, then, whenever<br />

we meet the words "good" or "the Good" in a sentence,<br />

we can substitute for them the word "pleasure". Now th<strong>at</strong><br />

pleasure is the Good is a discussible proposition, but th<strong>at</strong><br />

pleasure is pleasure is not a discussible proposition.<br />

Thus the<br />

two propositions do not mean the same thing, and pleasure<br />

cannot, therefore, be equ<strong>at</strong>ed with good or the Good.<br />

The same argument can be used with equal force against<br />

the <strong>at</strong>tempted identific<strong>at</strong>ion of good with any other con-<br />

cept. It follows th<strong>at</strong> good, or r<strong>at</strong>her, to use the word which<br />

in the interests of clarity of exposition I am proposing to<br />

substitute, value, is unique in die sense th<strong>at</strong> it cannot be<br />

equ<strong>at</strong>ed with, or exhaustively analysed into, anything else.<br />

* Sec Chapter XI, pp. 388,389-

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!