David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy Research Archives 10:567-571 (1984)
In this paper, I argue that Marcus G. Singer’s attack on Actual Consequence Utilitarianism, as held by G.E. Moore, is inconclusive. Singer contends that Moore’s view is incoherent because it cannot provide a criterion of moral rightness and wrongness. Singer makes the historical claim that Moore intended his theory to provide such a criterion and the philosophical claim that any moral theory must provide such a criterion.I contend that Singer’s historical claim is false. While Moore uses the terms ‘criterion’ and ‘test’ in connection with his moral theory, an examination of Moore’s use of the terms shows that this notion does not involve the verifiability that is at the heart of Singer’s understanding of ‘criterion’.I then argue that Singer’s claim that moral judgments be verified begs the question against Moore’s realism. I argue that Singer must either reject semantic realism in general or give up the view that moral judgments are objectively true or false
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(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
Rachel Tillman (2013). Ethical Embodiment and Moral Reasoning: A Challenge to Peter Singer. Hypatia 28 (1):18-31.
Kelby Mason (2011). Moral Psychology And Moral Intuition: A Pox On All Your Houses. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (3):441-458.
Joakim Sandberg & Niklas Juth (2011). Ethics and Intuitions: A Reply to Singer. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 15 (3):209-226.
Meredith Williams (1980). Rights, Interests, and Moral Equality. Environmental Ethics 2 (2):149-161.
Marcus George Singer (2002). The Ideal of a Rational Morality: Philosophical Compositions. Oxford University Press.
Ruth Anna Putnam (2008). Why Not Moral Realism? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 16 (1):17 – 29.
Daniel Stoljar (2006). Review: Should Moore Have Followed His Own Method? [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 129 (3):609 - 618.
Anthony Skelton (2011). Utilitarian Practical Ethics: Sidgwick and Singer. In Placido Bucolo, Roger Crisp & Bart Schultz (eds.), Henry Sidgwick: Ethics, Psychics, and Politics. Catania: University of Catania Press.
Eivind Storheim (1966). The Purpose of Analysis in Moore's Principia Ethica. Inquiry 9 (1-4):156 – 170.
Christopher Cordner (2005). Life and Death Matters: Losing a Sense of the Value of Human Beings. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (3):207-226.
Peter Singer (2008). Interview - Peter Singer. The Philosophers' Magazine 40 (40):59-60.
William J. Prior (1987). Compassion. Philosophy and Theology 2 (2):173-191.
Daniel Stoljar (2006). Should Moore Have Followed His Own Method? [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 129 (3):609 - 618.
Marcus G. Singer (1980). On Pollock's Dilemma for Singer. Philosophical Studies 38 (1):107 - 110.
John Greco (2002). How to Reid Moore. Philosophical Quarterly 52 (209):544-563.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads1 ( #438,484 of 1,100,994 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?