If 'ought' were always indexed to contingent ends, moral discourse would be reducible to instrumental rationality, yet Moore's open question argument shows 'good' resists such naturalistic reduction.

?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.

G.E. Moore(as the creator of the Open Question Argument): A highly influential British philosopher (1873-1958) who developed important ideas about how we know things and what words actually mean.
Indexed to(as used in ethics): Connected or adjusted according to something else; in this case, obligations that change based on how much risk someone is creating.
Moore's open question argument(metaethics, objection to moral naturalism): An argument that for any proposed natural property N, it remains an 'open question' whether something that is N is also good, thereby purporting to show that moral properties cannot be identified with natural properties
Reducible to(as used in philosophy generally): Able to be broken down into or explained using simpler parts; when something complicated can be shown to just be made of something simpler.

Based on where you are in your exploration