G.E.

MOORE’S NOTION OF INTRINSIC VALUE OF GOODNESS:

A Disproof about the three core values of Absolute legal separation

_____________________________________

A Research Thesis Paper

presented to the Faculty

of the Rogationist Seminary College of Philosophy

_____________________________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the

Research Methods

of Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy

_____________________________________

Ruel P. Maglinao

Sons of Holy Mary Immaculate

S.Y. 2017-2018

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
“Every human activity made attainable and productive when it is communally done”.
This paper work reach its culmination because of the generous presence of the following
persons:
First, to all my intellectual masters: my thesis panelists: Dr. Maroliano, Dr. Vinzons,
Mr. Ofalia, and Rev. Fr. Tagabi, who shared their time and intellectual expertise in order to
review my thesis paper, constructively; and to my thesis adviser and at the same time my English
proof reader, Mr. Rafael Dolor who guided and marked necessary improvements towards my
preliminaries.
Second, to all my teachers: Mrs. Zenaida Burgos, Ms. Mia Wright, Ms. Edna Miraflores,
Fr. Viktor Aurellana, RCJ, Fr. Gringo Tagabi, RCJ, Fr. John Lucas, RCJ, Fr. Alex Clemente,
RCJ, Fr. Al Flores, RCJ, Fr. Ryan Jimenez, RCJ, Fr. Fernandez, RCJ, Mr. Dolor, Mr. Ofalia,
Mr. Abanador, RN, Engr. Almario Legarte, Dr. Rodrigo Abenes, Dr. Ignatius Vinzons, Fr. John
Paolo Bautista, SHMI, Fr. John Michael Arquero, SHMI, Fr. Paolo Pirlo, SHMI and Fr.
Christmar Daguno, who engaged their time and intellectual expertise in order for me and all
students to attain the above average excellency towards philosophical learnings.
Third, to all my formators and spiritual fathers: Bro. Pablo Olivares, SHMI, Bro. Reinier
Juan, SHMI, Bro. Alven Rodol Mauricio, SHMI, Bro. Ulysses Cordero Rubia, SHMI, Fr. Paolo
Pirlo, SHMI, Fr. John Paolo Bautista, SHMI, Fr. John Michael Arquero, SHMI, Fr. Michael
Mata, SHMI, Fr. Dick Eslopor, SHMI, who endowed their paternal and fraternal concern and
guidance towards my spiritual, human and intellectual formations.
Next, to all my seminary brothers: to my batchmates (Batch Suhay): Joshua Areola,
Joselito Ayo, John Paul Castro, Renwick Degrano, Joseph Espalarga, Joseph Estorque, James
Paul Estrellado, Dino Mauro Gabuya, Mark Paul Magante, Jacob Morales, John Archie Narrido,
Glenn Ramesis Piad, Lloyd Jeffrey Sagiahon, Alvin Jake Tayaban, Charlie Gene Torreces, and
Edgar Villasor, who joined with me during my happy or sadden encounters inside the seminary;
and to all my roommates (Jaylord, Eden Vher, Cedrick, Bernard, Larry, El Rio, James, and
Michael Svein) who supported me and understand during my absence as their room mayor due to
my hectic schedule in making my philosophical paper.
Lastly, to the source of both my material and spiritual grace: to my biological family:
(Papa Dionesio, Mama Lorena, Anna Liza, Ricky and Raphe) who became my primary support
system and fans towards my vocation. Lastly, to our triune God who gave me this wonderful
vocation and the gift of philosophical education.
To all of you, thank you and let us help each other to build a prudent and holy Christian
world by educating them for what Christian doctrine is all about with the eternal grace of God.

ii
DEDICATION…

To All Strong Filipino Families (esp. Pines-Maglinao

Family), who inspired me to contribute a productive thesis
paper, which could be a defense against the massive
propagation of divorce in the Philippines.
By way of the Divine intervention, the Triune God, who
gives me wisdom and faith to pursue my thesis paper with
love and passion and the maternal care and intercession of
Mother Mary, my patroness and my mother and to my two
patron saints, St. Jerome and St. John of the Cross, who
became my guiding personalities throughout my literary
days everything becomes smooth and sound.
My little way of sharing the philosophical studies is my
little way to become a prolongation of Jesus’ ministry of
Christian perfection and human salvation. Let my will be
always in harmony with the perfect will of God.

iii
 ROGATIONIST SEMINARY COLLEGE OF PHILOSOPHY

LANGUAGE CLEARANCE

This thesis hereto entitled:

G.E. MOORE’S NOTION OF INTRINSIC VALUE OF GOODNESS:

A DISPROOF TOWARDS THE THREE CORE VALUES OF ABSOLUTE LEGAL
SEPARATION

Prepared and submitted by Post. Ruel P. Maglinao

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy

has been examined and is recommended for acceptance and approval for

“ORAL EXAMINATION”

MR. RAFAEL DOLOR, M.A.

English Reader

ROGATIONIST SEMINARY COLLEGE OF PHILOSOPHY

APPROVAL SHEET

iv
This thesis hereto entitled:

G.E. MOORE’S NOTION OF INTRINSIC VALUE OF GOODNESS:

A DISPROOF TOWARDS THE THREE CORE VALUES OF ABSOLUTE LEGAL
SEPARATION

prepared and submitted by Post. Ruel P. Maglinao in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of

Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy

has been examined and is recommended for acceptance and approval for

“ORAL EXAMINATION”

MR. RAFAEL DOLOR, M.A.

Thesis Adviser
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Approved by the Committee on Oral Examination with a grade of

PASSED ____________________________________________________ on October 03, 2017

__________________
Chair

____________ ____________
Member Member

Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy

REV. FR. GRINGO TAGABI, RCJ

Dean of Studies

v
 Abstract

Every entity must be valued in accordance with its own natural property, meaning to define such
identity it must be within its context, namely the intrinsic nature of property. The proposition is
now applied to the assessment of the controversial issue of moral decadence about HB 1799 or
the Proposed Divorce Bill in the Philippines. The paper will be framework from G.E. Moore’s
assertion on moral value as a single-simple property or a non- attributive property, a property
that can stand on its own; and an indefinable value property, a non-defining property of
goodness. G.E. Moore considers a maximization of value property, but refers that a valid
argument must be a definition within the given property. The framework will disvalue external
type of valuable property because it adheres to causality, which is more uncertain towards its
search of whole entity. G.E. Moore could be an antidote against absolute legal separation
through an ethical assessment, viz. the wholeness of its natural property. Wholeness of its
property must be evaluated through the non-differential quality, meaning its innate value of
nature (the act in itself) must be a permanent value throughout its end or the consequence of
human conduct. The three core values of absolute legal separation violates the principle of
intrinsic value of goodness. G.E. Moore said: “Once the intrinsic nature of valuable property
uncovers some variance of worth, then that core value deprives itself of any chances of intrinsic
value of goodness. Hence, G.E. Moore maintains his principle of Ethics that intrinsic value of
goodness is the moral judgment for the internal worth of all single-property of conduct
corresponding to wholeness of the consequential nature of human act. Therefore, the core values
of the Absolute legal separation or HB 1799 violate or did not possess intrinsically type of
valuable goodness.

vi
Thesis Statement: G.E. Moore’s Concept of Intrinsic Value of Goodness is an

instrument to disproof the possible presence of intrinsic value of goodness on the three

presumed core values of absolute legal separation.

Table of Contents
TITLE PAGE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....i
ACKNOWLEDEGMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….ii
DEDICATION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….iii
LANGUAGE CLEARANCE …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….iv
APPROVAL SHEET ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………v
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................vi
CHAPTER 1 (THE NEED TO INTRINSIC VALUE OF GOODNESS)
1.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 1
1.1.1 Topic of the Study 1
1.1.2 Philosophical Basis 3
1.1.3 Relevance of the Topic 9
1.1.4 Significance 11
1.1.5 Aim and Scope 13
1.1.6 Survey of Contending Views 14
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 20
1.3 THESIS AND DESIGN 21
1.4 THESIS STATEMENT 22
1.5 STYLE OF ARGUMENTATION 22
1.6 RATIONALE OF DISCUSSION/DIVISION OF CHAPTERS 23
1.7 CONCEPT MAP 25
CHAPTER 2 (THE PROBLEM TOWARDS THE THREE CORE VALUES OF ABSOLUTE LEGAL SEPARATION)…
26
2.1 ON ABSOLUTE LEGAL SEPARATION 27
2.2 WHAT ARE THE 3 CORE VALUES OF ABSOLUTE LEGAL SEPARATION 30
2.2.1 Nature Property of Human Dignity30
2.2.2 Nature Property of Family 37
2.2.3 Nature Property of Gender Equality 44
CHAPTER 3 (G.E. MOORE’S NOTION OF INTRINSIC VALUE OF GOODNESS TOWARDS THE THREE CORE
VALUES OF ABSOLUTE LEGAL SEPARATION) 52
3.1 ON G.E. MOORE’S CONCEPT OF INTRINSIC VALUE 52
3.1.1 On Simple and Non-Attributive Property 58
3.1.2 On Indefinable Property of Value 61
3.2 THE DISPROOF OF INTRINSIC VALUE OF GOODNESS TOWARDS THE 3 CORE VALUES OF ABSOLUTE
LEGAL SEPARATION 63
3.2.1 IVG on Human Dignity 63

vii
3.2.2 IVG on Family 69
3.2.3 IVG on Gender Equality 72
CHAPTER 4 (THE DIFFERING VIEWS ON INTRINSIC VALUE OF GOODNESS) 77
4.1 DEONTOLOGIST AND UTILITARIAN SYSTEM OF ETHICS ON INTRINSIC VALUE OF GOODNESS 77
4.1.1 Deontological Principle of Goodness 77
4.1.2 Bentham’s Principle of Utility 78
4.1.3 John Stuart Mill’s Concept of Hedonistic Happiness79
4.2 EVOLUTIONISTIC AND KANTIAN ETHICS ON INTRINSIC VALUE OF GOODNESS 80
4.2.1 Spencer’s Evolutionary Ethics 81
4.2.2 Huxley’s Evolutionary Ethics 82
4.2.3 Kantian Ethics 83
CHAPTER 5 (CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION) 85
5.1 EVALUATION 85
5.2 CONCLUSION 88
5.3 RECOMMENDATION 89

REFERENCES (WORKS CITED) 90

viii
ix