SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Bateman, Bradley)
Date:
Tue Jan 9 15:05:28 2007
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines)
John Medaille's characterization of Moore's ethical position may fit
textbook descriptions in some limited sense, but it is badly mistaken.
When Moore says that the good is indefinable, he is arguing that it is a
Platonic essence that would be intuited identically by any reasonable
person. Moore never argues in _Principia Ethica_ that the good is
individually determined or different for each person. In fact, that is
exactly the opposite of what he argues. (I am not defending Moore's
position here, nor am in interested in talking about some of its obvious
limits.)

Thus, I join Steve Horwitz in calling for the end to the use of easy
labels. If John Medaille thinks that Moore states anywhere in _Principia
Ethica_ or _Ethics_ that the good is individually determined and
specific to each person, then let him give us a citation.

Bradley W. Bateman


ATOM RSS1 RSS2