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
    The open question argument is not decisive against natura... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The open question argument is not decisive against naturalism

    Natural TheologyTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's distinction between epistemic and metaphysical necessity shows that conceivability gaps do not entail non-identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'water is H2O' is necessary yet non-obvious, then 'good is natural property N' can be necessary despite seeming open.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moore's 'open question' intuition tracks epistemic distance, not metaphysical distinctness, undermining its anti-naturalist force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Cornell realists like Sturgeon and Boyd ground moral naturalism in a posteriori synthetic identity, not conceptual analysis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The open question argument targets analytic naturalism specifically; synthetic naturalism is untouched by the charge that definitions must be obvious.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If moral terms rigidly designate natural properties discovered empirically, openness of associated questions is expected, not damning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The open question argument implausibly assumes that any correct definition or analysis must be obvious
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The open question argument implausibly assumes the correct response to the paradox of analysis is to deny that any analysis could be both correct and informative
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Natural TheologyTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language2 linked

    Related

    Cornell realists like Sturgeon and Boyd ground moral naturalism in a posteriori ...If 'water is H2O' is necessary yet non-obvious, then 'good is natural property N...If moral terms rigidly designate natural properties discovered empirically, open...Kripke's distinction between epistemic and metaphysical necessity shows that con...
    +4 moreShow less
    Moore's 'open question' intuition tracks epistemic distance, not metaphysical di...The open question argument implausibly assumes that any correct definition or an...The open question argument implausibly assumes the correct response to the parad...The open question argument targets analytic naturalism specifically; synthetic n...

    Similar

    The open question argument is no longer taken as decisive82%We cannot know in advance that every naturalistic definition will fail...81%Moore's open question argument does not demonstrate that all naturalis...77%Moore's open question argument fails to establish that goodness is not...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: moral-epistemology-a-priori
    View source passageHide passage
    While hugely influential, Moore’s open question argument is far from unassailable. One influential response points out that it implausibly assumes any correct definition or analysis must be obvious. According to this response, the open question argument implausibly assumes the correct response to the paradox of analysis is to deny that any analysis could be both correct and informative (see entry on analysis). So, the open question argument is no longer taken as decisive. In addition, a majori
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit