G.E.Moore on "good"

[Mike182]

"what is 'good'?" is a question that has plagued ethicists for centuries, and it is currently bothering me as well.... Moore says that "good" is like "yellow" in that we can talk about yellow, but we can't describe yellow to a person who has no prior knowledge of what "yellow" is - yet we have learnt what yellow is through our senses, i recognise what yellow is, because i have learnt to associate yellow with the color of lemons and bananas.

in the same way, i have learnt what "good" is because i have experienced that which is deemed as "good" by others in society.... is this all that morality is about? i personally think morality is deeper than just "learnt behaviour" - but i'm finding it quite difficult to formulate and argument against such a view.... unless i completely missed the point Moore was trying to make (which is possible, i miss a lot of things!)

any input would be appreciated!

 

[BucephalusBB]

is this all that morality is about?

By my view, yes..

 

[angellous_evangellous]

"what is 'good'?" is a question that has plagued ethicists for centuries, and it is currently bothering me as well.... Moore says that "good" is like "yellow" in that we can talk about yellow, but we can't describe yellow to a person who has no prior knowledge of what "yellow" is - yet we have learnt what yellow is through our senses, i recognise what yellow is, because i have learnt to associate yellow with the color of lemons and bananas.

in the same way, i have learnt what "good" is because i have experienced that which is deemed as "good" by others in society.... is this all that morality is about? i personally think morality is deeper than just "learnt behaviour" - but i'm finding it quite difficult to formulate and argument against such a view.... unless i completely missed the point Moore was trying to make (which is possible, i miss a lot of things!)

any input would be appreciated!

Try the first book in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics.

 

[stemann]

Moore was, in my opinion, incorrect.

Color or colour (see spelling differences) is the perception of the frequency (or wavelength) of light,

The term defined as "yellow" is perception of a certain frequency of light photons. That is its absolute definition (more or less).

Good has not yet been accurately defined scientifically. This is due to a majority view among philosophers that you cannot derive ethical statements (statements that use words such as ought, should, good, bad, right or wrong) from factual statements.

The best wikipedia can do, if it helps:

In religion, ethics, and philosophy, goodness and evil, or simply good and evil, refers to the concept of all human desires and behaviours as conforming to a dualistic spectrum —wherein in one direction are those aspects which are wisely reverent of life and continuity ("good"), and wherin the other direction are those aspects which are vainly reverent of death and destruction ("evil").

I personally don't understand the concept of 'good', and I don't believe in morality. Nobody has yet explained to me what "good" or "evil" means, short of your conscience or your superego making you feel "proud" or "ashamed".

I was going to start a thread asking somebody (begging is a more accurate word) to explain the concept of morality. I do not believe any prescriptive ethical theories; that is, ones which prescribe how one should act, because I don't believe the word "should" to mean anything.

I don't see any differences between the phrases "Murder is good," and "Murder is bad," except either in an emotive sense- ie, "I don't like murder" or in a hypothetical sense: "Murder is bad because it does not promote a healthy society," which is really emotive again, because what the speaker desires is a healthy society, and so their 'morals' are shaped around this.

So, basically, my own questions are similar to Mike182's:

i personally think morality is deeper than just "learnt behaviour" - but i'm finding it quite difficult to formulate and argument against such a view....

If morality is more than learned behaviour, what is it? Anyone know?

ps, I'm going to try the Aristotle book as well. Just in case there is something glaringly obvious I don't know....

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

If morality is more than learned behaviour, what is it? Anyone know?

ps, I'm going to try the Aristotle book as well. Just in case there is something glaringly obvious I don't know....

I'm struggling with this question myself but coming from a mostly Taoist framework rather than that typical of Western Philosophy.

 

[stemann]

Try the first book in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics.

Ok so I read the excerpts on the particular page that you linked, and even though it is only two paragraphs, it is a very clever argument which I admit I had never thought of before.

The upshot is this:

If therefore among the ends at which our actions aim there be one which we will for its own sake, while we will the others only for the sake of this, and if we do notchoose everything for the sake of something else (which would obviously result in a process ad infinitum, so that all desire would be futile and vain), it is clear that this one ultimate End must be the Good, and indeed the Supreme Good.

Excellent as an argument; clear, concise, logical, and above all, simple. However, I believe the answer has nothing to do with some 'objective morality' and is in fact rooted in emotivism. I believe everybody does whatever their subconscious perceives will bring them the most happiness/pleasure/comfort/'enjoyable state of mind'. I think that this is in essence a tautology and analytically true.

Reasoning: The essence of choice is that you choose what you want to do. If somebody were to attempt to choose to do something that they perceived was not what the wanted to do, then that would become what they wanted to do- because they had chosen it.

However, I think that I believe this is true because I do not believe in free will, and so I believe the definition of choice to be 'that which one wants to do'. I do not believe in free will because I do not see any possible way in which it could exist. I just see it as a contradiction and impossibility.

If anyone can show me how it is possible for free will to exist, please, please do.

 

[Mike182]

Moore was, in my opinion, incorrect.

The term defined as "yellow" is perception of a certain frequency of light photons. That is its absolute definition (more or less).

ok, now describe your perception of the color yellow so that i would be able to understand the color yellow if i had no prior knowledge of it - if i have no prior knowledge of yellow, i will not understand what it looks like by using your definition

Good has not yet been accurately defined scientifically. This is due to a majority view among philosophers that you cannot derive ethical statements (statements that use words such as ought, should, good, bad, right or wrong) from factual statements.

this is indeed Moore's "naturalistic fallacy" - you can't get a moral conclusion from a non-moral premise




I personally don't understand the concept of 'good', and I don't believe in morality. Nobody has yet explained to me what "good" or "evil" means, short of your conscience or your superego making you feel "proud" or "ashamed".

I was going to start a thread asking somebody (begging is a more accurate word) to explain the concept of morality. I do not believe any prescriptive ethical theories; that is, ones which prescribe how one should act, because I don't believe the word "should" to mean anything.

I don't see any differences between the phrases "Murder is good," and "Murder is bad," except either in an emotive sense- ie, "I don't like murder" or in a hypothetical sense: "Murder is bad because it does not promote a healthy society," which is really emotive again, because what the speaker desires is a healthy society, and so their 'morals' are shaped around this.

So, basically, my own questions are similar to Mike182's:



If morality is more than learned behaviour, what is it? Anyone know?

ps, I'm going to try the Aristotle book as well. Just in case there is something glaringly obvious I don't know....[/quote]

you could use social contract theory (Thomas Hobbes) in an evolutionary sense, to explain the develpment of a societal-based moral conviction, which would support ethical relativism...

 

[Fluffy]

I don't see any differences between the phrases "Murder is good," and "Murder is bad," except either in an emotive sense- ie, "I don't like murder" or in a hypothetical sense: "Murder is bad because it does not promote a healthy society," which is really emotive again, because what the speaker desires is a healthy society, and so their 'morals' are shaped around this.

If this is the case then why do I not say "ice cream is morally good"? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you I just think that what a person feels should and shouldn't be done is more equivilant to a special case of desire, not just desire in general.

My question: If morality is learned behaviour, is this somehow inferior to absolute morality?

 

[Mike182]

i don't think it is, the moral conviction would still be as strong

 

[stemann]

ok, now describe your perception of the color yellow so that i would be able to understand the color yellow if i had no prior knowledge of it - if i have no prior knowledge of yellow, i will not understand what it looks like by using your definition

If, say, you are not colour blind, and it is possible to perceive the colour 'yellow', then I would place an object which reflects light of a frequency defined as that of 'yellow' in your line of sight and say 'that is the colour yellow'.

The problem really is that you can't fully explain to somebody the notion of 'colour' who does not already have an idea of what 'colour' means. They must intuitively be able to know what 'colour' is, and then learn it. This is why Moore believed morality to be intuitive.

If this is the case then why do I not say "ice cream is morally good"? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you I just think that what a person feels should and shouldn't be done is more equivilant to a special case of desire, not just desire in general.

Do you care if other people eat ice cream? Do you think that what 'should' be done achieves some end that would not be served by either eating or not eating ice-cream? Do you think you have some kind of 'duty' to do the things that you believe 'should' be done, and that your eating or not eating ice-cream is irrelevant to this duty? I am just trying to see what you believe about morality, then I would try to show that that is really some branch of emotivism (unless I am wrong, and it isn't. In which case I will have learnt something for the day).

My question: If morality is learned behaviour, is this somehow inferior to absolute morality?

I don't understand what you mean by 'inferior'. And when I say 'morality' I don't mean 'What should be done/ought to be done', I mean what the majority of people believe exists as some code of conduct that 'should/ought to be done,' even though they disagree over what this 'code' actually consists of, and where it comes from.