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
    We cannot know in advance that every naturalistic definit... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

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

    We cannot know in advance that every naturalistic definition will fail the open question argument without considering each proposal

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & 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

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism2 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Concluding that all naturalistic definitions will fail based on a few crude exam...Moore only considers a few crude naturalistic definitions of goodnessMoore's open question argument does not demonstrate that all naturalistic defini...

    Similar

    Moore's open question argument does not demonstrate that all naturalis...83%The open question argument is not decisive against naturalism81%The open question argument implausibly assumes that any correct defini...76%Good cannot be analysed in naturalistic terms76%

    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