Movatterモバイル変換

1. Epicurus 1926. Thisformulation of hedonism is rough, since hedonists often allow for theintrinsic goodness and badness of thingsother than, butcontaining, pleasure and pain (things such as lives and worlds, forexample).

2. Although this is howthe term “intrinsic value” is often understood, it hasbeen understood in other ways, too. Sometimes it appears to be usedsimply as a synonym of “nonderivative value” after all.Also, at one point G. E. Moore uses it to refer to any kind of valuethat supervenes solely on the intrinsic nature of thevalue-bearer. See Moore 1922, p. 260.

3. Again, this is to putmatters only roughly. Seenote 1 above.

4. Kant could avoid thisimplication only by positing the existence of something infinitely badwhose value would counterbalance that of rational beings, or bydenying that the value of our world is proportional to that of itscontents. He nowhere indicates that he is prepared to make eithermove.

5. For another approach that rejectsboth notions of intrinsic and extrinsic value, see Rand 1965 [1967,11–34].

6.Rønnow-Rasmussen 2002 pursues the implications of thisdistinction in detail.

7. Geach 1956. Geachdoes not in fact identify Moore by name but aims his criticism atthose he calls “moral philosophers known asObjectivists.”

8. This view is discussedbut not endorsed in Rabinowicz and Rønnow-Rasmussen 2003.