Then, what is good? Good is good. However there must be relative estimation that we can say this is intrinsically good and has some greater value than something else in question.
As Moore states:
It was necessary for Ethics to enumerate all true universal judgments, asserting that such and such a thing was good, whenever it occurred. But, although all such judgments do refer to that unique notion which I have called good, they do not all refer to it in the same way. They may either assert that this unique property does always attach to the thing in question, or else they may assert only that the thing in question is a cause or necessary condition for the existence of other things to which this unique property does attach.
This is a good definition Moore came up with, however is there anything which is intrinsically good, objective; it is good in every set of circumstances, whenever it occurs? Moore solves this problem by saying that we must make a generalization. Now it is the thing to be asked, is this a scientific view? I thought what good is. Then concluded that ethics must be good with ethical thinking because it is thought that there exists a need for ethics, and if not so it would not be wise to think about that this much and insist on it.
The problem of unconsciousness is of vital importance to us. Maybe the gene sequence that has a vital importance for humanity is or will evolve in the DNA of a single mutant bacterium. We can not understand the potential harms and the potential importance of our actions, the problem of good becomes even harder to solve. You can’t know whether a genetically modified state of a gene will be useful at the time you are in, maybe its harms will emerge ages later and it will be too late before we conclude that manipulation was harmful and gave such mutants and after some estimated time, the end of the humanity would come. Hence, the relative intrinsic values become a matter of instance rather than a universal valid for whole time scale.
The question what things are good in themselves, and the question to what other things these are related as effects are the two questions that Moore tells they are essential to answer. With our basic knowledge of time and the dimensions we are in, it becomes a paradox, to which it is necessary to call attention, is that the value of such a whole bears no regular proportion to the sum of the values of its parts. Hence a question bears here in our minds that: “How come we can know that a thing considered as intrinsically less good is a part of a big whole that is intrinsically very important?” or how come can we assure ourselves as Moore tells “The probable future evils will not be greater than the immediate good.” Hence all the part and whole relations must be established and futuristic estimations must be done, however, this is impossible with our limitations over time.