In the middle of the chapter Hurka defines what is intrinsically good and evil by base-clause statements and recursion-clause statements. His first base clause (BG) states that certain states of affairs other than virtue are intrinsically good; he follows that later to state (BE) that certain states of affairs other than vice are intrinsically evil. He adds in the recursion clauses (LG and LE) that loving for itself what is good/evil is intrinsically good/evil. He also adds in another degree of recursion stating: C loving B's love of A (if A is intrinsically good/evil), is intrinsically good/evil.
Hurka also defines hating for itself what is good (HG) is intrinsically evil and in the same respect hating what is evil (HE) is intrinsically good. He goes on to use the same method of justification for attitudes and instruments.
This seems very logical and makes sense to me, but i'm worried that this definition of what is intrinsically good and evil is too broad. It seems to encompase too many things, including attitudes and instruments. It almost seems like everything can be defined in terms of Hurka's definition of intrinsic goodness/evilness.
For example, if knowledge is intrinsically good, then my love of my computer (which is an instrument towards my accquisition of knowledge) would have to be intrinsically good for "loving as a means what promotes good.... is intrinsically good" (17). Though logically this statement makes sense according to Hurka's view, it seems odd to me that so many things can be viewed as intrinsically good or evil, especially attitudes and instruments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It seems as if much of your problem is that things like instruments will also be given intrinsic good/bad labels. You used the proper logic for showing that loving your computer (or the use of it) is intrinsically good in your example: your computer is an intrinsic good, and loving something that promotes good is an intrinsic good. Afterwards you say that it is odd that so many things are intrinsically good or evil – this is where you have made a connection that isn’t there. Your computer is something that brings about an intrinsic good, namely knowledge. Hurka’s recursive clause then states that the love of your computer is also intrinsically good, because it is creating a tendency towards something that brings about intrinsic good. However, the computer did not become intrinsically good in this logical process – it remains an instrumental good. When looking at your computer in relation only to itself, it is not intrinsically good or bad. Since it brings about an intrinsic good, it is instrumentally good. It does not become intrinsically good because it is instrumentally good – the love of your computer for bringing about intrinsic goods is.
You might still have a problem with the broadness of Hurka’s definition since you said that it’s odd that both “attitudes and instruments” can be intrinsically good. I only showed that the instruments are not intrinsically good, but the attitude towards them definitely can be intrinsically good or evil (on Hurka’s view at least). I think there is merit towards giving attitudes intrinsic goods though, as it is creating tendencies or dispositions to bring about intrinsic goods.
Post a Comment