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 philosophy concerns what it is for a moral claim to be self-evident. The method in Moore’s epistemology concerns not denying the obvious. In review of the distance between something’s being self-evident and its being obvious, it is suggested that Soames’s proposal is mistaken.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
G. E. Moore (1903/2004). Principia Ethica. Dover Publications.
George Edward Moore (1925). A Defence of Common Sense. In J. H. Muirhead (ed.), Contemporary British Philosophy, Second Series. George Allen and Unwin.
George Edward Moore (1939). Proof of an External World. Proceedings of the British Academy 25 (5):273--300.
W. D. Ross (2002). The Right and the Good. Clarendon Press.
Scott Soames (2003). Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century. Princeton University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Thomas Hurka, Moore's Moral Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
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.
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.
Claudio Almeida (2001). What Moore's Paradox Is About. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62 (1):33 - 58.
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..
Daniel Stoljar (2006). Review: Should Moore Have Followed His Own Method? [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 129 (3):609 - 618.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #126,405 of 1,098,429 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #113,260 of 1,098,429 )
How can I increase my downloads?