Greetings,
Ken, I almost go along with Horse's definition but, being slightly worried about
having the term
'things' in it (and of course the MoQ claims that good possesses 'things' rather than
vice versa)
would phrase it thus:
Consider the statement, "A bachelor is an unmarried man." this is a closed question in
that it is
self referential. The meaning of bachelor is inbuilt into the concept of being
unmarried so I can't
ask, "I grant you that a bachelor is unmarried, but does he have a wife?" It doesn't
make sense. Now
consider the statement, "Quality is good." To that I can legitimately respond,
"Explain what you
mean by good," to which you might reply, "Quality is dynamic, value, power(?),
quality, etc." Now I
might still ask the question, "I grant you that quality is dynamic/static/powerful
etc, but is it
good?" The fact that I can ask that question without contradiction shows that quality
does not
directly equate to good. According to Moore, then, any ethical statement which reduces
good to
naturalistic terms (quality, happiness, virtue etc) is mistaken as it has committed
the naturalistic
fallacy described above.
This is a genuine question I am asking here. If anyone can give me a satisfactory
answer I will be
most grateful to them as I have been pondering this one for some time. An answer could
also clarify
the ethical stance of the squad as a whole as, at the moment, naturalistic fallacies
are flying left
right and centre without the problem being addressed.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
