Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 329–343 | Cite as

Goodness, Values, Reasons

  • Johan BrännmarkEmail author


Contemporary value theory has been characterized by a renewed interest in the analysis of concepts like “good” or “valuable”, the most prominent pattern of analysis in recent years being the socalled buck-passing or fitting-attitude analysis which reduces goodness to a matter of having properties that provide reasons for pro-attitudes. Here I argue that such analyses are best understood as metaphysical rather than linguistic and that while the buck-passing analysis has some virtues, it still fails to provide a suitably wide-ranging pattern of analysis for conceptualizing evaluative properties. Instead, a better alternative can be found in a metaphysical version of the Geachean view that goodness is always attributive and never predicative, namely that goodness is always a matter of relative placement in certain kinds of comparison classes. It is then suggested that the good and the valuable need to be separated from each other and that the latter is a species of the former.


Goodness Value Analysis Buck-passing Attributive 


  1. Ayer AJ (1936) Language. truth and logic, Victor Gollancz, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaney M (2007) Conceptions of analysis in the early analytic and phenomenological traditions: some comparisons and relationships. In: Beaney M (ed) The analytic turn: analysis in early analytic philosophy and phenomenology. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Brännmark J (2008) Excellence and means: on the limits of buck-passing. J Value Inq 42:287–432. doi: 10.1007/s10790-008-9114-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crisp R (2005) Value, reasons and the structure of justification: how to avoid passing the buck. Analysis 65:80–85. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8284.2005.00528.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Danielsson S, Olson J (2007) Brentano and the buck-passers. Mind 116:511–522. doi: 10.1093/mind/fzm511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darwall S (2003) Moore, normativity, and intrinsic value. Ethics 113:478–479. doi: 10.1086/345623 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Foot P (2001) Natural Goodness. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gallie WB (1955–56) Essentially contested concepts. Proc Aris Soc 56:167–198Google Scholar
  9. Geach PF (1956) Good and evil. Analysis 17:33–42. doi: 10.2307/3326442 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lind A, Brännmark J (2008) Particularism in question: an interview with Jonathan Dancy. Theoria Swed 74:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Magnell T (1993) Evaluations as assessments, part II: classifying adjectives, distinguishing assertions, and instancing good of a kind. J Value Inq 27:151–163. doi: 10.1007/BF01207373 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maurin A-S (2002) If tropes. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  13. Moore GE (1903) Principia ethica. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Moore GE (1953) Some main problems of philosophy. Muirhead, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Piller C (2001) Ways of being good. Acta Anal 16:153–167Google Scholar
  16. Rabinowicz W, Rønnow-Rasmussen T (2004) The strike of the demon: on fitting pro-attitudes and value. Ethics 114:391–423. doi: 10.1086/381694 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  18. Rind M, Tillinghast L (2008) What is an attributive adjective? Philosophy 83:77–88. doi: 10.1017/S0031819108000314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rohr MD (1978) Is goodness comparative? J Philos 75:494–503. doi: 10.2307/2025388 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rønnow-Rasmussen T (2002) Instrumental values - strong and weak. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 5:23–43. doi: 10.1023/A:1014422001048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Russell B (1900) A critical exposition of the philosophy of Leibniz. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Stratton-Lake P (2005) How to deal with evil demons: comment on Rabinowicz and Rønnow-Rasmussen. Ethics 115:788–798. doi: 10.1086/430491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Strawson PF (1957) Construction and analysis. In Ayer AJ et al. The Revolution in Philosophy, Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Strawson PF (1959) Individuals: an essay in descriptive metaphysics. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Thomasson A (2007) Conceptual analysis in phenomenology and ordinary language philosophy. In: Beaney M (ed) The analytic turn: analysis in early analytic philosophy and phenomenology. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Thomson JJ (1997) The right and the good. J Philos 94:273–298. doi: 10.2307/2564542 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations