1. Definition, Examples, and the Question of Good as Cause or Effect

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

• Examples vs. Definitions: How knowledge progresses from particular sensory examples to universal definitions. The Socratic dialogues show that when asked “What is X?” people naturally give examples before attempting definitions.
• The Socratic Method: Using dialogue to distinguish between giving multiple examples and articulating the one universal definition that encompasses them all.
• The First Definition of Good: “The good is what all desire” as stated by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics, derived from common human experience.
• Cause vs. Effect in Definition: The fundamental Euthyphro question applied to goodness: Is wanting the cause or the effect of something being good?
• The Role of the Senses in Knowledge: The sensory knowledge precedes reason; the senses know only particulars (examples), not universals.

Key Arguments #

The Progress from Examples to Definition #

• A child asked “What is a nose?” points to examples rather than defining the term universally.
• The most obvious difference between examples and definitions: there are many (or endless) examples, but typically one complete definition.
• The definition gathers what is common to all examples while leaving aside their differences.
• Aristotle (Posterior Analytics, Book II) teaches that one road to definition begins from examples through comparison and abstraction.

The Euthyphro Question Applied to Good #

• Socrates asks Euthyphro: Is something pious because the gods approve of it, or do the gods approve of it because it is pious?
• This question distinguishes between cause (what makes something to be what it is) and effect (what results from its nature).
• Applied to good: Is something good because we want it, or do we want it because it is good?
• Equivalently: Is wanting the cause or the effect of the good?

The Inductive Method for Resolving the Question #

• Method: Enumerate particular goods and their corresponding desires; examine each case to determine the causal relationship.
• Particular Goods Examined:
  • Food (hunger) — Food is necessary for survival apart from any desire for it; we desire it because it is objectively good
  • Water (thirst) — Good for all creatures (including plants) independent of thirst; thirst exists so creatures pursue what is already good
  • Sleep — Restorative function exists apart from desire; nature gives us the desire for sleep so we will pursue what is good
  • Health — Objectively beneficial regardless of wanting it
  • Reproduction — Essential for species continuation apart from desire for it
  • Pleasure, knowledge, money, friendship, wisdom — All desired because they are recognized as good, not vice versa

Conclusion from Induction #

• In each case examined, the good exists and is recognizable as good apart from our desire for it.
• Therefore: We desire things because they are good, not the reverse.
• Wanting is the effect; goodness is the cause.

Important Definitions #

• Good (First Definition): That which all desire; the universal object of appetite (τὸ ἀγαθόν ὃ πάντες ὀρέγονται).
• Definition by Cause (ὁρισμὸς κατὰ αἰτίαν): An explanation of what something is by reference to what makes it to be that thing.
• Definition by Effect (ὁρισμὸς κατὰ τὸ πάθος): An explanation of what something is by reference to what results from or follows upon its nature; e.g., “virtue is a praiseworthy quality.”
• Induction (ἐπαγωγή): An argument proceeding from many particulars to a universal conclusion; also called “leading in.”
• Syllogism (συλλογισμός): An argument in which a conclusion follows necessarily from premises.
• Property (ἴδιον): An attribute that necessarily follows upon the nature of a thing; e.g., barking follows upon being a dog.
• Simple Accident (συμβεβηκὸς ἁπλῶς): An attribute that does not necessarily follow from a nature; e.g., being white does not follow from being a man.

Examples & Illustrations #

The Little Boy and Definition #

• When asked “What is a nose?” a child points to noses (his own, the teacher’s) rather than providing a universal definition.
• This illustrates the natural progression of knowledge: from sensory particulars to universal concepts.

Socrates and the Boy on Good #

• Socrates asks a boy, “What is good?” and the boy responds: “Candy is good. Pizza is good.”
• Socrates continues asking, drawing out more examples: “Baseball is good. Football is good. Bicycles are good. Vacation is good.”
• Socrates then says: “I asked you for one thing [a definition], and you gave me many [examples].” (Referencing a Greek proverb about asking for one dish but receiving many.)
• The boy eventually recognizes what all these goods have in common: they are all things he wants.

The Shark Rescue, Soldier, and Firefighter (The Three Acts of Courage) #

• A woman swims into shark-infested water to save a young man’s life.
• A soldier charges into enemy fire on the battlefield.
• A firefighter runs into a collapsing building to rescue a baby.
• What they share: All risk their lives toward something (or someone) for a good reason.
• What distinguishes courage from foolhardiness: The good reason; a foolhardy person risks his life for no good reason.
• What distinguishes courage from cowardice: The courageous person will risk his life for a good reason; the coward will not.

The Last Drink at the Party #

• A host offers another drink; the guest accepts, wanting it.
• The guest becomes sick from that last drink.
• The guest later admits: “I shouldn’t have had that last drink.”
• The point: He wanted it, yet it was not good for him. So wanting something does not make it good for you.

The Car at 100 Miles Per Hour #

• A boy wants to drive his car 100 miles per hour down a winding road.
• He crashes and wraps the car around a tree, ending up in traction.
• Even he realizes: driving at that speed down that road was not good for him or his car.
• Yet he definitely wanted to do it; no one forced his foot on the gas pedal.

The Sick Child and Food #

• A mother urges her sick child to eat, even though the child has no appetite.
• The mother recognizes that food is good for the child apart from the child’s desire for it.
• The point: Goodness is objective; it does not depend on subjective wanting.

Notable Quotes #

“The good is what all desire.” — Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics I.1 (as cited by Berquist)

“Unless you become again like a little child, you can’t enter the kingdom of heaven.” — Jesus (Matthew 18:3); Berquist applies this: “Unless you become again like a little child, you can’t enter the kingdom of philosophy.”

“Wisely and slow; they stumble that run fast.” — Friar Lawrence, Romeo and Juliet (cited as advice for philosophical inquiry: proceed carefully, not hastily)

“Is it pious because the gods approve of it? Or do the gods approve of it because it is pious?” — Socrates in Plato’s Euthyphro (the foundational question of cause vs. effect)

Questions Addressed #

Primary Question #

• Is something good because we want it, or do we want it because it is good?
  • Equivalently: Is wanting the cause or the effect of goodness?
  • This question determines whether goodness is objective (independent of desire) or subjective (dependent on desire).

Objection to “Something is good because we want it” #

• Objection: Many things we want turn out not to be good for us (the last drink, speeding in a car).
• Consequence: If wanting made something good, then the fact that we wanted these things would have made them good for us, which is false.

Objection to “We want something because it is good” #

• Objection 1: If the good were the cause of wanting, wouldn’t the good always be wanted? Yet sometimes people don’t want what is good for them (a child doesn’t want bed or school).
• Objection 2: If contrary causes produce contrary effects, and if good causes wanting, then bad should cause aversion. Yet people seem to want bad things.
• Response (anticipated): These objections require further explanation involving the mediating role of knowledge, which will be developed later.

Methodological Notes #

• The lecture employs induction, the easier and more natural method, before moving to deductive syllogism.
• The method follows the advice of Friar Lawrence: “Wisely and slow”—proceeding carefully through multiple particular cases rather than rushing to conclusion.
• The lecture acknowledges that objections exist on both sides of the question but commits to pursuing “the most known way” to answer it.
• The next phase of inquiry will address the objections to the conclusion that goodness is the cause of desire.