works
Thomas Hurka ‘Good’ and ‘Good for’ article Many philosophers claim that ‘good for’ is intelligible, ‘good’ period unintelligible. My view is the opposite. The ‘good’ period is defined as what everyone ought morally to desire and pursue; ‘good for’ is found to be quadruply ambiguous, and the curse of moral philosophy.

‘Good’ and ‘Good for’

Thomas Hurka

Mind, vol. 96, no. 381, 1987, pp. 71–73

Abstract

Many philosophers claim that ‘good for’ is intelligible, ‘good’ period unintelligible. My view is the opposite. The ‘good’ period is defined as what everyone ought morally to desire and pursue; ‘good for’ is found to be quadruply ambiguous, and the curse of moral philosophy.

PDF

First page of PDF