If 'ought' implies 'can know what to do', then Moore's unknowability claim does not resolve the contradiction but instead reveals that his framework lacks a coherent single standard of rightness.

?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.

Moore(Moore's proof refers to his famous argument for the existence of external objects): G.E. Moore was an influential 20th-century philosopher known for defending common sense claims (like 'this is a hand') against skeptical arguments that doubt what we can know about the world.
Single standard of rightness(as what a coherent moral theory should have): One clear, consistent rule or principle that determines what is morally correct or good.
Unknowability claim(as Moore's position on whether we can understand goodness): An argument that something cannot be known or understood—in this case, Moore's idea that we cannot explain or define what 'goodness' actually is.
coherent(de Finetti's usage in the context of the Dutch Book argument for probabilism): A subject is coherent if their unconditional degrees of belief do not permit a Dutch Book (a guaranteed loss through a combination of bets) to be made against them

Based on where you are in your exploration