Moore believes that good is a simple term like yellow and cannot be defined. He thinks that good is a non-natural term that cannot be perceived by the senses and is understood by moral intuition. The predicate good is understood by him as not complex, as in not composed of parts. The frame that Moore is attempting to understand the term good is in the dichotomous context of ‘good and evil’ or ‘what is good vs what is bad?’ He believes that the use of the term good predominantly commits the naturalistic fallacy; prescribing a moral evaluation from a descriptive state of affairs.
The perspective that Moore is taking on the term good is the first issue that leads him into not being able to define the term. He has a very narrow definition of ‘good’ as in what we see as pleasure, what we desire or some form of self-realization. Moore’s problem is assuming that the term good is necessarily limited to these domains for good can have a larger category than the context that he provides. Non -moral circumstances can be good that are independent of our self-interest or desire.
Stevenson’s emotivist view, that we are making an effort to influence others when we make moral claims via ‘I approve of X’ can also be incorporated into a larger framework of the sense of good. Some good phenomena are moral, within our self-interest, and something one would want others to be influenced to do. But, it is not necessarily the case that the term good is limited to these kinds of considerations.
First, some terms are multi dimensional so there can be a qualia like quality to the usage of good but also an intricate and complex aspect to it as well. We may have access to a moral intuitive judgment of when something strikes us as good in the realm of human relations, but there are phenomena in the cosmos that are good independent of any human input.
Good can be a way to explain and describe the complex nature of events that progress through time in a state of harmony with itself and other entities in relation to it. As the cosmos progresses through time, we can say good things happen in the intricate development of physical properties. We can then evaluate interactions within the cosmos by placing one entity or phenomena as the higher ordered value; a specific plant, nebula, or human self-interest. If a star is formed, we could say that is a good thing. Not because that star has any impact on our desires, self-interest, or in line with ethical principles but the natural progression of our cosmological environment is inherently good for its own sake.
How we frame the evaluation standard of good and what it applies to will determine what the meaning of good ends up being. One could say, ‘But yes Achilles, what justice is there in destruction?! Is destruction not a form of creation and hence good as well. If the bombs go off, and all humans die, would it not be good for some other context that is independent of humans, like the post radiation organisms who live on after our extinction?” The only response we can give is in agreement, that this is true. But that does not change the broadening definitional quality of the term good, the issue comes down to the prioritization of values or axioms that we build from to determine what is good.
In some senses, our anthropomorphic bias will lead us to valuing our cosmological environment and the existence we have within. However, we are able to understand the concept of good as an increasing form of complexity that creates a stable state of equilibrium and or harmony with the entities existing within its parameters. If we have a biological petri dish, and all of the organisms are killed by a toxin, and life is extinct, the complexity of organic matter has been vanquished. Therefore the fundamental property of good is complexity in its nature. How we apply that condition, complexity, within its cosmological context is up to us as the thinker who is reflecting on our values. It is not so much the place of goodness that is an issue, its value.
Aj 20.4.22
© Achilles Atlas Justice and achillesjustice.com, 2018-22. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Achilles Atlas Justice and achillesjustice.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Comentarios