Advertisement

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 31–52 | Cite as

Intrinsicalism and Conditionalism about Final Value

  • Jonas Olson
Article

Abstract

The paper distinguishes between two rival views about the nature of final value (i.e. the value something has for its own sake) — intrinsicalism and conditionalism. The former view (which is the one adopted by G.E. Moore and several later writers) holds that the final value of any F supervenes solely on features intrinsic to F, while the latter view allows that the final value of F may supervene on features non-intrinsic to F. Conditionalism thus allows the final value of F to vary according to the context in which F appears. Given the plausible assumption that there is an intimate tie between final values and appropriate attitudinal responses, it appears that conditionalism is the better approach for mainly the following three reasons: First, intrinsicalism is too indiscriminate, which makes it subject to what I call ‘location problems’ of final value. I illustrate this problem by discussing alleged examples of Moorean organic unities. Second, intrinsicalism evokes symptoms of ‘evaluative schizophrenia’. Third, considerations of theoretical economy tell in favour of conditionalism. Thereafter I respond to some recent challenges to conditionalism. An appendix surveys some meritorious implications that conditionalism offers for various substantial versions of such structurally different views about value as monism, pluralism, and particularism.

conditionalism final value intrinsicalism G.E. Moore organic unities pain pleasure supervenience 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Anderson, E., Values in Ethics and Economics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, E, Practical Reasons and Incommensurable Goods, in Chang (ed.), Incommensurability, Icomparability, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997, pp. 90–109.Google Scholar
  3. Audi, R., Intrinsic Value and Moral Obligation, Southern Journal of Philosophy 35 (1997), pp. 135–154.Google Scholar
  4. Bradley, B., Extrinsic Value, Philosophical Studies 91 (1998), pp. 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley, B., Is Intrinsic Value Conditional?, Philosophical Studies 107 (2002), pp. 23–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brentano, F., The Origin of Our Knowledge of Right and Wrong. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969 [1889].Google Scholar
  7. Brännmark, J., Good Lives: Parts and Wholes, American Philosophical Quarterly 38 (2001), pp. 221–231.Google Scholar
  8. Butchvarov, P., Skepticism in Ethics. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. Chisholm, R., The Defeat of Good and Evil, Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association 42 (1968–69), pp. 21–38.Google Scholar
  10. Chisholm, R., Brentano and Intrinsic Value. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. Dancy, J., On the Logical and Moral Adequacy of Particularism, Theoria 65 (1999), pp. 144–155.Google Scholar
  12. Dancy, J., The Particularist's Progress, in Hooker and Little (eds.), Moral Particularism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 130–157.Google Scholar
  13. Dancy, J., Are There Organic Unities?, Ethics 113 (2003), pp. 629–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dancy, J., Holism and Atomism in the Theory of Reasons and Value, Manuscript of a Chapter of a Forthcoming Book.Google Scholar
  15. Ewing, A. C., The Definition of Good. New York: MacMillan, 1947.Google Scholar
  16. Feldman, F., Utilitarianism, Hedonism, and Desert. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. Feldman, F., Basic Intrinsic Value, Philosophical Studies 99 (2000), pp. 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldstein, I., Cognitive Pleasure and Distress, Philosophical Studies 39 (1981), pp. 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldstein, I., Pleasure and Pain: Unconditional Intrinsic Values, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50 (1989), pp. 255–276.Google Scholar
  20. Hurka, T., Two Kinds of Organic Unity, The Journal of Ethics 2 (1998), pp. 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hurka, T., Virtue, Vice, and Value. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  22. Kagan, S., Rethinking Intrinsic Value, The Journal of Ethics 2 (1998), pp. 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Korsgard, C.M. (1996[1983]): Two Distinctions in Goodness, in Korsgaard, Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 249–274, reprinted from The Philosophical Review 92 (1983), pp.169–195.Google Scholar
  24. Kupperman, J., Value... And What Follows. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  25. Langton, R., and Lewis, D., Defining Intrinsic, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 (1998), pp. 333–345.Google Scholar
  26. Lemos, N.M., Intrinsic Value: Concept and Warrant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  27. Lemos, N.M., Organic Unities, The Journal of Ethics 2 (1998), pp. 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lemos, N.M., Review of Kupperman, Value... And What Follows. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62 (2001), pp. 492–495.Google Scholar
  29. Lemos, R., Bearers of Value, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51 (1991), pp. 873–889.Google Scholar
  30. Mason, A., Egalitarianism and the Levelling Down Objection, Analysis 61 (2001), pp. 246–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McNaughton, D., Moral Vision. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988.Google Scholar
  32. Mill, J.S., Utilitarianism, in Ryan (ed.), Utilitarianism and Other Essays, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1987 [1861].Google Scholar
  33. Moore, G.E., Principia Ethica, revised edition, Baldwin, T. (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993 [1903].Google Scholar
  34. Moore, G.E., The Conception of Intrinsic Value, in Baldwin (ed.), Principia Ethica, revised edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993 [1922]a, pp. 280–298.Google Scholar
  35. Moore, G.E., Preface to the 2nd Edition, in Baldwin (ed.), Principia Ethica, revised edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993 [1922]b, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
  36. Moore, G.E., Ethics. London: Oxford University Press, 1963 [1912].Google Scholar
  37. Moore, G.E., Is Goodness a Quality?, in Moore, Philosophical Papers. New York: MacMillan, 1959, pp. 89–101, reprinted from Aristotelian Society supplement 11 (1932).Google Scholar
  38. Olson, J., Revisiting the Tropic of Value: Reply to Rabinowicz and Rønnow-Rasmussen, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (2003), 412–422.Google Scholar
  39. Olson, J., and Svensson, F., A Particular Consequentialism: Why Moral Particularism and Consequentialism Need Not Conflict, Utilitas 15 (2003), pp. 194–205.Google Scholar
  40. O'Neill, J., The Varieties of Intrinsic Value, The Monist 75 (1992), pp. 119–137.Google Scholar
  41. Parfit, D., Equality and Priority, Ratio 10 (1997), pp. 202–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paton, H.J., The Alleged Independence of Goodness, in Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of G. E. Moore. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1942, pp. 113–134.Google Scholar
  43. Rabinowicz, W., and Rønnow-Rasmussen, T., A Distinction In Value: Intrinsic and For Its Own Sake, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 100 (1999), pp. 33–49.Google Scholar
  44. Rabinowicz, W., and Rønnow-Rasmussen, T., Tropic of Value, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (2003), pp. 389–403.Google Scholar
  45. Regan, D., How to Be a Moorean, Ethics 113 (2003), pp. 651–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ross, W.D., The Right and The Good. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930.Google Scholar
  47. Scanlon, T., What We Owe To Each Other. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  48. Slote, M., Goods and Virtues. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  49. Sumner, L.W., Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  50. Stratton-Lake, P., Pleasure and Reflection in Ross's Intuitionism, in Stratton-Lake (ed.), Ethical Intuitionism: Re-evaluations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002, pp. 113–136.Google Scholar
  51. Temkin, L., Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  52. Zimmerman, M.J., Virtual Intrinsic Value and the Principle of Organic Unities, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59 (1999), pp. 653–666.Google Scholar
  53. Zimmerman, M.J., The Nature of Intrinsic Value. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001a.Google Scholar
  54. Zimmerman, M.J., Intrinsic Value and Individual Worth, in D. Egonsson et al (eds.), Exploring Practical Philosophy: From Action to Values. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2001b.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonas Olson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations