Moore's objective consequentialism preserves the action-guiding distinction between what one ought ideally to do and what one is blameworthy for failing to do, which the epistemic revision collapses.

?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.

Action-guiding distinction(as the key feature Moore's theory preserves): The idea that moral rules need to do two different jobs: (1) tell us what the ideal thing to do is, and (2) decide whether we deserve blame when we fail—and these two jobs might have different answers.
Collapses(complexity theory): When separate levels of a hierarchy become indistinguishable or merge into one, suggesting they're actually the same difficulty level.
Epistemic revision(as the alternative approach that Moore's theory avoids): A change to a moral theory based on what we can know or understand; specifically here, it refers to adjusting ethics to match what's humanly knowable rather than what's objectively true.
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.

Based on where you are in your exploration