Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    If 'good' means 'conducive to pleasure', the question 'X ... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The analysis of 'good' as 'conducive to pleasure' fails

    If 'good' means 'conducive to pleasure', the question 'X is conducive to pleasure, but is it good?' should be closed

    ConsequentialismPhilosophy of Language
    ?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.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageConsequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Proof of definition segments1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    An open question after substitution indicates the proposed definition is incorre...The analysis of 'good' as 'conducive to pleasure' failsThe question 'X is conducive to pleasure, but is it good?' is open — for example...

    Similar

    The question 'X is conducive to pleasure, but is it good?' is open — f...89%The analysis of 'good' as 'conducive to pleasure' fails88%For any naturalistic definition N of 'good', the question 'X is N, but...86%If 'good' means 'what we are ideally inclined to approve of', then 'Wh...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: moral-epistemology-a-priori
    View source passageHide passage
    According Moore, all naturalistic analytic definitions of “good” fail, committing what he called “the naturalistic fallacy”. To show all naturalistic analyses of goodness fail, Moore presented the “open-question argument”. The basic idea is that if a definition of “good” is correct, a morally competent person could not sensibly question whether something satisfying the definition is good. Consider a definable term: a triangle is a closed plane figure with three angles. No person who understands

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective