PHIL 230 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: Value Theory, Naturalistic Fallacy

• School: McGill University
• Department: Philosophy
• Course: PHIL 230
• Professor: Bruno Guindon

Document Summary

Moore believe these are fundamental questions of ethics. How do we go about establishing an answer to each of them: for answers to the first question, no relevant evidence whatever can be adduced. so. One must adduce causal threats about the results of the action in questions. Ethical truths about what ought to exist for its own sake (cid:862)a(cid:374)y othe(cid:396) ki(cid:374)d of e(cid:448)ide(cid:374)(cid:272)e is (cid:449)holly i(cid:396)(cid:396)ele(cid:448)a(cid:374)t(cid:863) Moore will argue for these two fundamental question by using two kinds of evidence. Most fundamental question in ethics according to moore. (ch. I,ii) can goabout two ways to answer this question. x,y,z etc. (listing things that are good) (cid:272)la(cid:396)ifi(cid:272)atio(cid:374) of the (cid:373)ea(cid:374)i(cid:374)g (cid:862)good(cid:863). Clarifying is not itself offering a list of examples, but is a necessary step to offering a list. For example, what is a bachelor? we need to clarify the concept before we can give a list: good as indefinable.