G.E. Moore's open question argument demonstrates that identifying 'good' with 'pleasurable' commits a naturalistic fallacy, undermining Spencer's deductive bridge from evolutionary facts to hedonic norms.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
(as a historical philosopher referenced in ethics)
A 19th-century British philosopher who applied Charles Darwin's ideas about evolution to society and morality, arguing that survival of the fittest could justify certain ethical positions.
Identifying 'good' with 'pleasurable'(as an example of the naturalistic fallacy)
The claim that something is good if and only if it produces pleasure; a specific version of hedonism that Moore attacked.
naturalistic fallacy(G. E. Moore's term, introduced in 1903, applied to any attempt to reduce moral properties to naturalistically specifiable properties.)
The error of supposing that a moral property is identical to some natural property, however that natural property might be specified.
open question argument(Metaethics; critique of moral naturalism)
G.E. Moore's argument that for any natural property N, the question 'Is N good?' remains genuinely open, purporting to show that goodness cannot be identical to any natural property.