1. Richard Taylor: ON THE ORIGIN OF GOOD AND EVIL
Morality is not transcendental, but a naturalistic reality.
It originates in the fact we have desires and what Taylor calls “felt needs”
We are CONATIVE BEINGS
If there are no desires, there are no values & no good or evil
Compare with Hobbes? Nietszche? Plato?

2. Taylor’s “4 Worlds”
Taylor is presents us with 4 worlds to support his argument that good/bad and good/evil are tied. to our being Conative, or people with “felt needs”.
He proposes 4 worlds, gradually adding conditions to see what is necessary for good/bad and good/evil to be present in the world.
He make some claims about rationality that we will want to examine carefully.

3. World One: There would be no concept of good/evil
Imagine the world as it is, but without any living thing capable of reacting to the world
There would be no concept of good/evil
In fact no difference between a beautiful and a harsh world
Nothing is better or worse – it is just a world of facts

4. World Two:
Imagine a world with people like ourselves… rational, intelligent and capable of perception, but these people don’t have needs, purposes or desires. [They are mechanical beings.]
There would still be no concept of good and evil.
QUESTION: How is rationality related to purpose?
Is rationality only true/false & inferences as Taylor seems to suggest?
Is rationality independent of needs?

5. World Three:
Add one sentient being. A being for whom “what he finds makes a difference” [definition of sentient”?]
Now we get the notion of good and evil – but NOT the idea of moral right & wrong.
Furthermore: Good and Evil are absolute to that person.
And there is no sense of “moral obligation” [Why not?]

6. World Four:
Add another sentient being and we get moral right and wrong – Why?
Because aims and purposes can conflict
They both can want the same thing
But their aims and purposes can also coincide [compare with Hobbes]

7. Right and Wrong are relative to rules
In order to satisfy the needs and fulfill goals for more than one person rules are needed.
Rules = ways of behaving/”practices”
The “rational element” is that one choice available avoids an “evil”
Compare with Hobbes? Nietzsche? Plato?