Two distinctions in goodness

Abstract

The author argues that the distinction between final and instrumental goods is frequently and improperly conflated with the distinction between intrinsic (or unconditional) and extrinsic (or conditioned) goods. This conflation has serious consequences for value theory, notably the view that any extrinsically good thing whose goodness depends on its pleasantness is a mere means to pleasure. After considering these consequences he compares the views of two philosophers—Moore and Kant—who did not conflate the two distinctions but who differed as to whether there are extrinsically good ends—that is, things which are final goods in virtue of the interests that people take in them. I challenge Moore’s view that final goodness is independent of interest and defend Kant’s view that rational choice can render a thing good.