PHLC05H3 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Bipedalism, Naturalistic Fallacy, Fallacy
G.E. Moore Principia Ethica
• The good is a simple unanalyzable property, like yellow
• You can’t define it—it’s unanalyzable
• The study of ethics is supposed to give systematic reasons as to why something is considered to be
good
• So, we have to try to understand what good is
• This cannot be solved by explaining how we use the word good
• The question of what a table is is not answered by explaining how the word is used: we want to
know what the word stands for, what it refers to
• 1st point:
• Propositions about the good are analytic and never synthetic
• In a synthetic proposition two qualities, properties or concepts are combined into one
• Humans are featherless bipeds is synthetic
• Propositions about the good do not combine two concepts or properties
• Two synthetic claims that tell us nothing about good:
• Pleasure is the good
• The good is what is desired
• According to Moore, these two do not tell us anything about the good
• The good is instead simple. Like yellow is simple
• Not all good is pleasurable, and not all good is desirable. Not all good things are delicious
• Saying that pleasure or what is desired have that property tells us nothing about the property
• They don’t tell us what the property good denotes
• Desire and pleasure have the property of good, but they tell us nothing about the property of good
• Moore says that you cannot explain to anyone who does not already know it what good is
• For example, thinking about the word yellow, as a child you are shown pictures of different colours
and told, That is yellow, that is blue, etc. and you learn to connect it. But, the good is like this: you
are also taught examples of what is good, such as someone being honest and returning a lost
wallet; and you are told that those examples illustrate good. But you cannot explain to anyone
who does not already know what good is. You cannot explain what yellow is to anyone who does
not already know it. It’s a simple, unanalyzable property and cannot be broken down into simpler
components. Returning the wallet was good; what is good? You already have to know what good is.
You cannot learn good from seeing examples of it—you already have to know it in order to identify
it
• Definitions are only possible where the thing in question is complex
• Such as, a table is a flat surface with four legs
• Yellow and good are not complex
• These simple concepts are indefinable
• It is possible to explain how we use the terms good and yellow.
• We cannot, however, substitute anything in our in our minds for these words that would stand for
what are talking about
• A definition can usually be substituted in the sentence in which the term is used
• She is human
• She is a rational, featherless biped
• There is nothing that we could substitute for the good
• You can explain what a good student is
• You can explain what things are good—what things have that property
• i.e. A good student does all the reading
• i.e. A good car does not break down
• Here it is an adjective. You can explain why the property applies to that noun. You can define a good
student, but not good itself
• Things which have the quality good also have other properties
• Yellow things for example produce a certain vibration in the eye because of the quality of light rays
• It is indeed the task of ethics to determine what those other qualities are: a good person has, for
example, integrity.
• But these other qualities are not the same as good or yellow.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
