Video Case Study

12/28/2020 Print Preview

https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?deploymentId=5835051934529006900868413293&eISBN=9781337614467&id=1034289154&nbId… 1/2

6-2a Instrumental and Intrinsic Goodness

To appreciate moral philosophy, you must understand the different perspectives on the notion of goodness. Is there a clear and unwavering line between “good” and “bad”? What is the relationship between the ends and the means in generating “good” and “bad” outcomes? Is there some way to determine the ends can be identified independently as good or bad? Because the answers can be complex and confusing, we have simplified the discussion. Aristotle, for example, argued that happiness is an intrinsically good end and that its goodness is natural and universal, without relativity. On the other hand, the philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that goodwill, seriously applied toward accomplishment, is the only thing good in itself.

Two basic concepts of goodness are monism and pluralism. Monists (Believe only one thing is intrinsically good) believe only one thing is intrinsically good, and pluralists believe two or more things are intrinsically good. Monists are often characterized by hedonism (The idea that pleasure is the ultimate good, or the best moral end involves the greatest balance of pleasure over pain) —the idea that pleasure is the ultimate good, or the best moral end involves the greatest balance of pleasure over pain. Hedonism defines right or acceptable behavior as that which maximizes personal pleasure. Moral philosophers describe those who believe more pleasure is better as quantitative hedonists (Those who believe more pleasure is better) and those who believe it is possible to get too much of a good thing (such as pleasure) as qualitative hedonists (Those who believe it is possible to get too much of a good thing) .

Pluralists (Often referred to as nonhedonists, take the opposite position that no one thing is intrinsically good) , often referred to as non-hedonists, take the opposite position that no one thing is intrinsically good. For example, a pluralist might view beauty, aesthetic experience, knowledge, and personal affection as ultimate goods. Plato argued that the good life is a mixture of

1. moderation and fitness,

2. proportion and beauty,

3. intelligence and wisdom,

4. sciences and arts, and

5. pure pleasures of the soul.

Although all pluralists are non-hedonists, all monists are not necessarily hedonists. An individual can believe in a single intrinsic good other than pleasure; Machiavelli and

12/28/2020 Print Preview

https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?deploymentId=5835051934529006900868413293&eISBN=9781337614467&id=1034289154&nbId… 2/2

Nietzsche held power to be the sole good, for example, and Kant’s belief in the single virtue of goodwill classifies him as a monistic non-hedonist.

A more modern view is expressed in the instrumentalist position. Sometimes called pragmatists, instrumentalists (Reject the ideas that (1) ends can be separated from the means that produce them and (2) ends, purposes, or outcomes are intrinsically good in and of themselves) reject the ideas that

1. ends can be separated from the means that produce them and

2. ends, purposes, or outcomes are intrinsically good in and of themselves.

The philosopher John Dewey argued that the difference between ends and means is merely a matter of the individual’s perspective; thus, almost any action can be an end or a mean. Dewey gives the example that people eat to be able to work, and they work to be able to eat. From a practical standpoint, an end is only a remote mean, and the means are but a series of acts viewed from an earlier stage. From this conclusion it follows there is no such thing as a single, universal end.

A discussion of moral value often revolves around the nature of goodness, but theories of moral obligation change the question to “What makes an action right or obligatory?” Goodness theories (Focus on the end result of actions and the goodness or happiness created by them) typically focus on the end result of actions and the goodness or happiness created by them. Obligation theories (Emphasize the means and motives by which actions are justified, and are divided into the categories of teleology and deontology) emphasize the means and motives by which actions are justified, and are divided into the categories of teleology and deontology.

© 2020 Cengage Learning Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may by reproduced or used in any form or by any means - graphic, electronic, or mechanical, or in any other manner - without the written permission of the copyright holder.