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
    Moore only considers a few crude naturalistic definitions... — Carmelics
    Home/Truth & Knowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Moore's open question argument does not demonstrate that all naturalistic definitions of goodness will fail

    Moore only considers a few crude naturalistic definitions of goodness

    Truth & Knowledge
    ?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

    Truth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Skepticism2 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Truth & Knowledge
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Related

    Concluding that all naturalistic definitions will fail based on a few crude exam...Moore's open question argument does not demonstrate that all naturalistic defini...We cannot know in advance that every naturalistic definition will fail the open ...

    Similar

    Every naturalistic definition of goodness — whether in terms of second...87%Moral properties such as goodness cannot be defined in wholly psycholo...84%If goodness cannot be defined wholly with reference to concepts from t...84%There is a property of goodness that is not identical to any naturalis...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: intuitionism-ethics
    View source passageHide passage
    Moore’s argument has a great deal of intuitive force, but has been subject to various objections, and it is not clear that all of them can be answered. One of the first was that it just begs the question against the naturalist. Moore only considers a few very crude naturalistic definitions of goodness, and concludes from these that all naturalistic definitions will fail the open question argument. Frankena (1939) objected that this was premature. We cannot know in advance that every naturalistic

    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