2 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Is-Ought Problem responses
Maybe you're right. But can you explain the argument?
Aesthetic preference has nothing to do with the biological / natural sense of "good" as "behooves". In fact, most aesthetic preferences actually conflict with the sense of "behooves".
I don't see why you think this is a general rule.
For example, "this beer is good" does not mean "this beer supports one's efforts to maintain internal unity". In fact, the goodness of a beer often results from its ability to actively diminish internal unity.
Sure, I suppose? I don't see how you get that our preference for beer 'results from' its ability to diminish internal unity.
More broadly, our taste in food is quite directly related to what it took to maintain our metabolism. We find sugar tasty, and rotten meat repulsive. Why? Because one supports our biology, and the other interferes with it.
Comment by Quidfacis_ at 24/07/2016 at 12:54 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I don't see how you get that our preference for beer 'results from' its ability to diminish internal unity.
Often "this beer is good" is related to the beer's ability to cause drunkenness. Drunkenness is diminished internal unity. One could also say "this beer is good" with respect to the taste of the beer. That is not necessarily the result of diminished internal unity, but a beer's flavor most assuredly does not foster an organism's internal unity.
My main reason for using the example of beer is that beer diminishes an organism's internal unity. There is no sense in which beer behooves an organism's internal unity. One can try to argue that beer behooves an organism by "making folks look more sexually attractive" or "diminishing social anxiety", but those are silly arguments employed only by the argumentatively desperate.
our taste in food is quite directly related to what it took to maintain our metabolism
Sometimes, but not always. I think watermelon flavored bubble gum is "good" while grape flavored bubble gum is "bad". There is absolutely no "maintain internal unity" factor in that flavor preference. The same with my thinking dark colored shoes are "good", or my thinking Cowboy Bebop is "good".
One could stretch "maintain internal unity" in an emotional sense, where "internal unity" means "happy", so "X is good" means "X makes me happy" means "X maintains my internal unity"...but that does not really address OP's question. If we collapse
together such that all three of those mean the same thing, then we've lost the difference most folks intend when they use the word "good" rather than those other expressions. Movie critics take themselves to be saying more than "This film makes me happy" when they describe a film as "good", especially movies like Schindler's List. Or say someone describes a horror movie as "good" due to its ability to scare and cause fright, which is a diminishing of internal unity.
TL;DR It seems weird, to me, to think that when a heroin addict says "Heroin is good" the addict means "Heroin supports my efforts to maintain internal unity."