Recall from the discussion about how G. E. Moore disputed the position of ethical “naturalists”. And we all know about Moore had his own theory of ethical specialized on meta-ethics, which used logic and ideas from linguistics to analyze the ethical concepts, the properties and meaning of judgments and etc.
For Moore, who focused on analysis of the logic in moral language, explained the meaning of moral language, and divided up the content of moral language with the actual language. He advocated the importance of been “neutrally” for any ethical believe and principle system, then study the problem upon this base of acknowledgement.
In many specified cases, applying equations and symbols from natural science logics, which seems very formal …show more content…
Generally speaking, the book gave answers to three questions, “what is the meaning of virtuous”, “Is there anything is good just for its own” and “what action is just good or suppose to be good”. Moor said “right” is something that can’t be defined. It’s some unnatural property that can be identified by intuition. And the “right action” is totally dependent on the measurement of virtuous for result. As for “what is good”, Moore gave the ideas of aesthetic appreciation and personal affections.
Moore made two movements that were profound and lasting when he was setting up and answering these questions. He introduced the analysis of language to ethical theory, and disputed the past ethical theory for “solecism of naturalism”, that evolution ethics mistakenly defined “evolution” equally to “virtuous”. J. S. Mill said “happiness” equal to “good”, Immanuel Kant defined “wish” or “desire” is same to “good”. And Moore’s disputations were very strong, also very hard to easily been …show more content…
It only recognized that only happiness, nothing else is good. Mill said “happiness is the only purposed desire and happiness is no pain.” But Moore reputed that when happiness is only object of desire, Mill’s hedonism mixed up two different ideas, one is unrealistic happiness that leads to the necessary – when I want wine, what I desired is not wine, but the happiness it can provide me. Therefore, when we desired for something, we don’t even realize that we were hoping for happiness, and when we were hoping for happiness, only very little part of it was hoping for
For Moore, who focused on analysis of the logic in moral language, explained the meaning of moral language, and divided up the content of moral language with the actual language. He advocated the importance of been “neutrally” for any ethical believe and principle system, then study the problem upon this base of acknowledgement.
In many specified cases, applying equations and symbols from natural science logics, which seems very formal …show more content…
Generally speaking, the book gave answers to three questions, “what is the meaning of virtuous”, “Is there anything is good just for its own” and “what action is just good or suppose to be good”. Moor said “right” is something that can’t be defined. It’s some unnatural property that can be identified by intuition. And the “right action” is totally dependent on the measurement of virtuous for result. As for “what is good”, Moore gave the ideas of aesthetic appreciation and personal affections.
Moore made two movements that were profound and lasting when he was setting up and answering these questions. He introduced the analysis of language to ethical theory, and disputed the past ethical theory for “solecism of naturalism”, that evolution ethics mistakenly defined “evolution” equally to “virtuous”. J. S. Mill said “happiness” equal to “good”, Immanuel Kant defined “wish” or “desire” is same to “good”. And Moore’s disputations were very strong, also very hard to easily been …show more content…
It only recognized that only happiness, nothing else is good. Mill said “happiness is the only purposed desire and happiness is no pain.” But Moore reputed that when happiness is only object of desire, Mill’s hedonism mixed up two different ideas, one is unrealistic happiness that leads to the necessary – when I want wine, what I desired is not wine, but the happiness it can provide me. Therefore, when we desired for something, we don’t even realize that we were hoping for happiness, and when we were hoping for happiness, only very little part of it was hoping for