ABSTRACT

As a rule, one endeavors to do what is good or has good results, but there is no way to know what that is a priori, just by thinking about it. The intrinsically good may be either an unconditioned or a conditioned reinforcer; people may naturally be so constituted as to be reinforced by it, or they may have to become habituated to it. The morally good, or just, consists of actions that count as good not because they are themselves reinforcing but because they reinforce their reinforcement by other persons in the society. Ambiguity is only one complication. G. E. Moore's objection trades on an ambiguity in the word meaning. His complaint would be right if a naturalistic definition concerned what logicians call the connotation or intension of the word good. Moore's objection to naturalistic definitions of good was also wide of the mark.