true and the good

[rkamasam]

In the essay "fact and value" Peikoff states that: "Every proper value-judgment is the identification of a fact: a given object or action advances man's life (it is good): or it threatens man's life (it is bad or an evil). The good, therefore, is a species of the true; it is a form of recognizing reality. The evil is a species of the false; it is a form of contradicting reality. Or: values are a type of facts; they are facts considered in relation to the choice to live."

I am struggling to grasp the relationship between the true and the good. How can one possibly infer the statement: "the good, therefore, is a species of the true", from its preceding statement in the above quote.

Because, if the fact that an object or action can be harmful or threatening to man's life is "true," then the evaluation of the fact (as bad or evil) cannot possibly make it a species of the "true."

Similarly, if the recognition of the fact that an action or object could threaten (bad or evil) man's life is "true," then doesn't that make "evil" a species of the true??

I am sure, peikoff didn't intend the conclusions I reached, but I am missing something here.

[Felix]

In the essay "fact and value" Peikoff states that: "Every proper value-judgment is the identification of a fact: a given object or action advances man's life (it is good): or it threatens man's life (it is bad or an evil). The good, therefore, is a species of the true; it is a form of recognizing reality. The evil is a species of the false; it is a form of contradicting reality. Or: values are a type of facts; they are facts considered in relation to the choice to live."

I am struggling to grasp the relationship between the true and the good. How can one possibly infer the statement: "the good, therefore, is a species of the true", from its preceding statement in the above quote.

Because, if the fact that an object or action can be harmful or threatening to man's life is "true," then the evaluation of the fact (as bad or evil) cannot possibly make it a species of the "true."

Similarly, if the recognition of the fact that an action or object could threaten (bad or evil) man's life is "true," then doesn't that make "evil" a species of the true??

I am sure, peikoff didn't intend the conclusions I reached, but I am missing something here.

I haven't read the article myself, yet. But judging from what you have quoted, I guess what he means is that doing something good is a recognition of reality and doing something evil is an evasion of it. It's acting on wrong principles or not acting on the right ones that is harmful, and therefore evil, I suppose.

That certain things are evil in this sense is, of course, a fact, and as such a species of the true. But not recognizing this fact and still acting on them, then is a species of the false.

[Maarten]

Or to state it otherwise, if the good was not a species of the true (with true meaning that it accurately reflects reality) it would mean that the good is somehow divorced from reality. This is the case in most of the standard moral codes, as they weren't based on a proper basis (or completely contradicted the basis), and it's the main reason why most people can't be bothered to follow them as a guide to action, consistently. That, and the fact that they are simply impossible to follow consistently, of course

[JMeganSnow]

InSimilarly, if the recognition of the fact that an action or object could threaten (bad or evil) man's life is "true," then doesn't that make "evil" a species of the true??

No, the evil is false. If I were to say "eating arsenic is good for my health," this would be a false statement, and thus evil. However, if you were to recognize that this statement is false, your recognition and evaluation of it as evil would be a true thing. So the evaluation of something as evil is a true thing, but the evil thing itself is not true.

Oh, I deleted bi-la-kaifa's comment, since I couldn't figure out what it had to do with this thread.

Edited July 15, 2006 by JMeganSnow

[rkamasam]

I understand the issue now. I made the mistake of assming that the truth and falsehood only applied to the

facts without evaluation, instead of recognizing that evaluation (something as for or against man's life) is implicit in recognition of the fact: i.e in recognizing a fact as corresponding to reality or contradicting is also the evaluation that it is good or evil.