[peirce-l] RE: the quality of good

[Jim Piat]

Wilfred wrote:   >> I did not respond. But actually would have said the same. That I would not know. In some situations I actually would have no problem at all putting the car at full speed and driving the man dead. While at other I would refuse to drive whatever the consequences might be as long the two subjects in front would stay alive.   We could have this kind of discussions here. I would regard it very interesting. But think they should then better take place on some separate list probably. For discussion about applicability of the Peirce notions. And maybe getting the anothernesses into the discussions also.>>   Dear Wilfred, Folks-   Thanks for the interesting response and my apologies for taking some of it out of context in the interest of saving list space.  One of the reason I was not yet ready to post my comments was because I wanted to tie them in specifically to Peirce.  I believe he takes the view that his whole theory of logic and signs derives from the twin notions of aesthetics and beauty.  That the good and the beautiful are themselves related and that both are more fundamental than the idea of truth.    In his essay dealing with the classification of the sciences (page 62 of Buchler's Philosophical Writing of Peirce) I found the following quote of Peirce:   "Esthetics is the science of ideals, or of that which is objectively admirable without and ulterior reasons.  I am not well acquainted with this science; but it ought to  repose on phenomenlogy.  Ethics or the science of right and wrong, must appeal to Esthetics for aid in determining the *summum bonum*.  It is the theory of self controlled, or deliberate conduct.  Logic is the theory of self controlled, or deliberate, thought; and as such , must appeal to ethics for its principles".   I agree with Peirce that we begin with the admirable (the given of what is desireable) but I think I would draw or emphasize a distinction between conduct that is desireable for the individual (or as perceived from a limited perspective) versus that which is desireable for the group (or from the broader persepective of the species or life itself).  Ultimately I think beauty resides in survival of the group not the individual.  And indeed when it comes to beauty folks tend to hold the group average as the best example.  For example, in studies I can't cite off hand, folks tend to rate facial and bodily features most nearly approximating the group mean as most attractive.   Well, now that I think of it, I believe Peirce does make the point that community feeling is a more admirable ethical principle than individual interests.  So I think the notion of good I was trying to develop in my initial post was more or less derived from Peirce.    I could not find a Peirce reference to Nietzsche.  Do you or others know where Peirce offers an opinion on Nietzsche?   Thanks again for your interesting  and encouraging comments, Wilfred.  Personally I think we could have a fun and pertinent discussion of ethics right here on the Peirce list if there is sufficient interest and participation.  Trouble is,  it usually take some emotionally charged current event issue to arouse folk's interests, and often such discussions tend to get mired down in disputes over the facts which end up overshadowing  discussion of the  of ethical principles and considerations.  This,  it seems to me,  is even more the case with real life ethical conflicts (as opposed to discussions of hypothetical situations).  Can a consideration of facts be made independent of a consideration of the beautiful and ethical and some logicians suppose?  I'm not convinced.  And not just because folks get upset over such disputes but rather because such attempts to separate fact and value are inherently false and upsetting!   Cheers, Jim Piat --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com