G. E. MOORE'S PROOF THAT 'GOOD' CANNOT BE DEFINED IS THEANALOGUE OF HUME'S PROOF THAT THE IDEA OF CAUSE HAS NOEMPIRICAL CORRELATE. AS A PROOF, IT CANNOT SUSTAIN ETHICALINTUITIONISM, EMOTIVISM, OR THE VARIOUS MODIFICATIONS OFETHICAL NATURALISM WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE TO REST UPON IT.HOWEVER, IT DOES SUSTAIN THE THEORY THAT VALUES ARE CAUSESOF HUMAN RESPONSES, AND THAT, UNDER A METHODOLOGICALINTERPRETATION OF OBJECTIVITY, VALUES HAVE OBJECTIVECOGNITIVE STATUS AS CAUSES OF RESPONSES IN THECONSCIOUSNESS OF A HYPOTHETICAL BEING, AN IDEAL OBSERVER.
CITATION STYLE
Allen, G. O. (1970). From the “Naturalistic Fallacy” to the Ideal Observer Theory. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 30(4), 533. https://doi.org/10.2307/2105633
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.