Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Moore's open question argument shows 'good' cannot be defined by any natural property without generating a meaningful residual question.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Conceptual openness doesn't prove metaphysical distinctness; 'water' was conceptually open to ancient speakers but reduces to H₂O.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Moore's argument assumes definitional identity requires conceptual transparency, but many valid definitions lack this property.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The open question persists partly due to linguistic convention and the complexity of natural properties, not because 'good' is non-natural.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
If 'good' meant a natural property like 'pleasure,' asking 'is pleasure good?' would be meaningless, yet it remains intelligibly open.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Our intuition that ethical questions are substantive and non-trivial suggests ethical terms resist reduction to descriptive naturalistic terms.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The conceptual gap between descriptive facts and normative claims mirrors the linguistic gap Moore identified in the open question.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42