Abstract

Having discussed prescriptive language in Part I, Hare turns to value‐words in Parts II and III. He begins by arguing that though value‐words are ‘supervenient’ or ‘consequential’, they are so not as a matter of analytic entailment, e.g. because ‘good’ means ‘most conducive to pleasure’. Hare's argument for thus rebutting all forms of naturalism is that any definition of ‘good’ in this way would prevent us from commending something we want to commend.