Abstract

Moral theory requires for its development an account of human wellbeing, of what it is for a thing to be good for a person: a theory, that is, of nonmoral goodness. Contemporary moral theorists--notably the so-called "new natural law theorists" and consequentialists alike--have come under fire for their failure to provide defensible accounts of nonmoral goodness.' This essay will present in outline three important rival approaches to the question of nonmoral goodness--natural law, communitarian, and informed-desire approaches--and will identify some significant strengths and weaknesses within and some principle differences among these rival versions. One of these approaches, the full-information informed-desire approach of recent popularity, will be developed to overcome its shortcomings by incorporating natural law and communitarian resources. Finally, the resulting view will be presented as maintaining the strengths and avoiding the weaknesses of each of the three rival approaches discussed, and thus as showing more promise than they for serving as the foundation of moral theory.