|
Library
|
Your profile |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|
Philosophy and Culture
Reference:
Shokhin, V.K.
Is a Good Definition of Goodness? (Experience of Ancient Philosophy)
// Philosophy and Culture.
2013. ¹ 11.
P. 1588-1597.
URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=63553
Shokhin, V.K. Is a Good Definition of Goodness? (Experience of Ancient Philosophy)Abstract: George Moor’s basic theorem about indefinability of goodness has been the topic of debates in metaethics up to the present. It is quite understandable because the solution of this question has an influence on many ethic programs. However, this problem is mostly solved a priori and just in theory. The author of the article describes how it is possible to solve the problem from the point of history and philosophy. If, in spite of the evident proof that goodness has a ‘simple’ and ‘absolute’ meaning and therefore it is an indefinable concept, history and philosophy provide certain definitions of this term, then Moor’s position can be corrected. If not, then Moor’s theorem will be proved a posteriori. The author of the article analyzes definitions (and proof that there are no definitions) of goodness in ancient philosophy from the first Indian philosophers to Sextus Empiricus. Keywords: George Moor’s basic theorem about indefinability of goodness has been the topic of debates in metaet, this problem is mostly solved a priori and just in theory. The author of the article describes how i, in spite of the evident proof that goodness has a ‘simple’ and ‘absolute’ meaning and therefore it i, history and philosophy provide certain definitions of this term, then Moor’s position can be corrected. If not, then Moor’s theorem will be proved a posteriori. The author of the article analyzes definitions (and
This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article
This article written in Russian. You can find original text of the article here . References
1. Aristotel'. Sochineniya v chetyrekh tomakh. T. 4. M.: Mysl', 1984.
2. Diogen Laertskii. O zhizni, ucheniyakh i izrecheniyakh znamenitykh filosofov / Per. M.L. Gasparova. M.: Mysl', 1986.
3. Mur Dzh.E. Priroda moral'noi filosofii / Per. s angl., sost. i prim. L.V. Konovalovoi. M.: Respublika, 1999.
4. Sekst Empirik. Sochineniya v dvukh tomakh. T. 2. M.: Mysl', 1976.
5. Fragmenty rannikh stoikov. T. III. Ch. 1. Khrisipp iz Sol. Eticheskie fragmenty / Per. i komment. A.A. Stolyarova. M.: Greko-Latinskii kabinet Yu.A. Shichalina, 2007.
6. Fragmenty rannikh stoikov. T. III. Ch. 2. Ucheniki i preemniki Khrisippa / Per. i komment. A.A. Stolyarova. M.: Greko-Latinskii kabinet Yu.A. Shichalina, 2010.
7. Shokhin V.K. Indiiskaya filosofiya. Shramanskii period (seredina I tysyacheletiya do n.e.). SPb: Izd-vo S.-Peterb. un-ta, 2007.
8. Anscombe E.G.M. Modern moral philosophy // Philosophy. The Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy. 1958. Vol. 33. ¹ 124. P. 1-19.
9. Ars Rhetorica. Aristotle. W.D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959.
10. Frankena W.K. The Naturalistic Fallacy // Mind. 1939. Vol. 48. (192). P. 464–477.
11. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Diogenes Laertius / Ed. by R.D. Hicks. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.
12. MacIntyre A. After Virtue: a Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 2010.
13. Moore G.E. Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1903.
14. Pali Text Society. Dīgha-Nikāya / Ed. by Prof. T.W. Rhys Davids and Prof. J.E. Carpenter. Vol. I. L., 1967
|
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
Eng
