"Intrinsic Goods"

In Hull’s Chapter II: Philosophical Ethics, he discusses something called an “intrinsic good”, something that is good in itself, good for all people at all times, and that does not require justification by other things. Hull’s example of an “intrinsic good” in the reading was sleep. In class, it was thoroughly discussed what other “intrinsic goods” might be (i.e. happiness and love). It was determined however that neither of these goods are intrinsic because they are emotions are thus are not always good for all people. For instance, what is good for me and what makes me happy may be hurtful or harmful to others. My interpretation of an “intrinsic good”, based on Hull’s example of sleep, is something which is physically necessary for the survival of an individual, for instance physical health.

In the handout we received on Thursday, Professor Perry writes, “Those who claim to have access to the one and only ‘intrinsic good’ are simply denying the fact of pluralism.” But, if one interprets “intrinsic goods”, like I have, as “the things we have in common”, which are also discussed in the handout, then perhaps pluralism and “intrinsic goods” can go hand in hand. With this argument, I would say that there is not one and only “intrinsic good” but many. They are the things we have in common (like food, shelter, and physical health as discussed). But what is necessary to acknowledge is that the means of obtaining an “intrinsic good” is still based on ethical judgments – the “instrumental goods”. No one can argue that a physical need isn’t a positive thing (the act of needing is not necessarily good, but the actual necessities are), and thus those “intrinsic goods” are positive for all people at all times. The means of obtaining that good, that necessity is, what I would argue is, the “instrumental good”, and it is not necessarily good at all times. That is where ethical judgment comes into play. For example getting “hot and heavy” (as put in the handout) is an “intrinsic good”. Rape, the “instrumental good”, however is not ethically justifiable.