Helen Knight and Margaret Macdonald on the meaning of ‘good’

I argue that Helen Knight and Margaret Macdonald expressed views on the nature of 'good' in aesthetic contexts which anticipate to a striking extent the dispute between Peter Geach and R. M. Hare over ethical uses of 'good' several years later. I show that Knight introduced a distinction between uses of adjectives later drawn also by Geach, and that she employed that distinction, as Geach did, in order to defend a descriptivist approach to 'good' according to which 'good' is not ambiguous. I also show that Macdonald conceived of evaluative statements as commendatory, and that her conception of evaluative language therefore closely resembles the position which Hare would later advance.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
British Journal for the History of Philosophy
Published
2024-08-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2024.2379977
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Political Philosophy and Ethics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.46
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Helen Knight and Margaret Macdonald on the meaning of ‘good’

Oliver Thomas Spinney
2 citations
British Journal for the History of Philosophy
Political Philosophy and Ethics
4.46
article

Helen Knight and Margaret Macdonald on the meaning of ‘good’

Oliver Thomas Spinney
article en
2 citations

Abstract

I argue that Helen Knight and Margaret Macdonald expressed views on the nature of 'good' in aesthetic contexts which anticipate to a striking extent the dispute between Peter Geach and R. M. Hare over ethical uses of 'good' several years later. I show that Knight introduced a distinction between uses of adjectives later drawn also by Geach, and that she employed that distinction, as Geach did, in order to defend a descriptivist approach to 'good' according to which 'good' is not ambiguous. I also show that Macdonald conceived of evaluative statements as commendatory, and that her conception of evaluative language therefore closely resembles the position which Hare would later advance.

British Journal for the History of PhilosophyVol. 33(4)
Royal Holloway University of London (GB), Universidad de Londres (MX)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Political Philosophy and Ethics
4.46
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.