Breathing life into a dead argument: G.e. Moore and the open question
Philosophical Studies 117 (3):395-408 (2004)
| Abstract | A century after its publication, G.E. Moore''sPrincipia Ethica stands as one of theclassic statements of anti-naturalism inethics. Moore claimed that the most basic ethicalproperties were denoted by `good'' and `bad'' andthat all naturalist accounts of thoseproperties were inadequate. His open-questionargument aimed to refute any proposedidentification of good with some naturalproperty, and Moore concluded from theargument that good must be a nonnaturalproperty.The received view is that the open-questionargument is a failure. In this paper,my aim is to breathe some life back intoMoore''s argument. My plan for doing so beginsby presenting the standard interpretation ofthe argument and then showing that there isan alternative to that interpretation. Thealternative is not developed at any length byMoore and stands in need of some elaboration. Isuggest a way of elaborating theargument and then show that the standardcriticisms of Moore fail to undermine thisalternative version of the open-questionargument. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesSusana Nuccetelli & Gary Seay (2007). What's Right with the Open Question Argument. In Susana & Gary Nuccetelli & Seay (ed.), Themes from G. E. Moore: New Essays in Epistemology and Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Susana Nuccetelli & Gary Seay (eds.) (2007). Themes From G.E. Moore: New Essays in Epistemology and Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Richmond Campbell & Jennifer Woodrow (2003). Why Moore's Open Question is Open: The Evolution of Moral Supervenience. Journal of Value Inquiry 37 (3):353-372.
Stephen W. Ball (1988). Reductionism in Ethics and Science: A Contemporary Look at G. E. Moore's Open-Question Argument. American Philosophical Quarterly 25 (3):197 - 213.
James Pryor (2004). What's Wrong with Moore's Argument? Philosophical Issues 14 (1):349–378.
Mark van Roojen (2006). Knowing Enough to Disagree: A New Response to the Moral Twin Earth Argument. In Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies In Metaethics, Volume 1.
Caj Strandberg (2004). In Defence of the Open Question Argument. Journal of Ethics 8 (2):179-196.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads87 ( #8,270 of 549,013 )Recent downloads (6 months)21 ( #2,574 of 549,013 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
