Review: Should Moore Have Followed His Own Method? [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 129 (3):609 - 618 (2006)
I discuss Soames's proposal that Moore could have avoided a central problem in his moral philosophy if he had utilized a method he himself pioneered in epistemology. The problem in Moore's moral philossophy concerns what it is for a moral claim to be self-evident. The method in Moore's epistemology concerns not denying the obvious. In view of the distance between something's being self-evident and its being obvious, it is suggested that Soames's proposal is mistaken.
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy Epistemology Logic Philosophy of Mind Philosophy of Religion|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Daniel Stoljar (2006). Should Moore Have Followed His Own Method? [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 129 (3):609 - 618.
Jack Temkin (1984). Singer, Moore, and the Metaphysics of Morals. Philosophy Research Archives 10:567-571.
Paul Arthur Schilpp (1952). The Philosophy of G. E. Moore. New York, Tudor Pub. Co..
Claudio de Almeida (2001). What Moore's Paradox is About. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62 (1):33-58.
Claudio Almeida (2001). What Moore's Paradox Is About. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62 (1):33 - 58.
John Greco (2002). How to Reid Moore. Philosophical Quarterly 52 (209):544-563.
Brian Hutchinson (2001). G.E. Moore's Ethical Theory: Resistance and Reconciliation. Cambridge University Press.
Ian Proops (2006). Soames on the Metaphysics and Epistemology of Moore and Russell. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 129 (3):627–635.
Kazem Sadegh-Zadeh (1987). The Three Paradoxes Lost a Response to Moore and Hutchins. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2 (2):217-233.
Thomas Hurka, Moore's Moral Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Philip Stratton-Lake & Brad Hooker (2006). Scanlon Versus Moore on Goodness. In Terry Horgan & Mark Timmons (eds.), Metaethics After Moore. Oxford University Press. 149.
Andrew Chignell (2006). Review: Moore, Noble in Reason, Infinite in Faculty: Themes and Varitation in Kant's Moral and Religious Philosophy. [REVIEW] Philosophical Review 115 (1):118-121.
John N. Williams (2004). Moore's Paradoxes, Evans's Principle and Self-Knowledge. Analysis 64 (284):348-353.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads4 ( #289,040 of 1,410,127 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #177,743 of 1,410,127 )
How can I increase my downloads?