Back
to top
What is Moore’s open question argument?
Watch this threadPage 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Ashley Laura
Badges:
11
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Pls I don’t understand if someone can clarify xx it’s under meta-ethics aqa a level.
Thank you!!
Thank you!!
0
reply
Joe312
Badges:
17
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report
#2
The open question argument follows from Moore's views about 'goodness' being undefinable and the naturalistic fallacy.
A closed question in one which makes no sense to ask. E.g "does a triangle have three sides?". This could only be asked by someone ignorant of the meaning of 'triangle'.
However any claim about what goodness is will ultimately be an open question. A utilitarian could claim that goodness is happiness, however the question "is goodness happiness" remains open since goodness cannot be defined and therefore asking that question does not entail ignorance.
A closed question in one which makes no sense to ask. E.g "does a triangle have three sides?". This could only be asked by someone ignorant of the meaning of 'triangle'.
However any claim about what goodness is will ultimately be an open question. A utilitarian could claim that goodness is happiness, however the question "is goodness happiness" remains open since goodness cannot be defined and therefore asking that question does not entail ignorance.
0
reply
Ashley Laura
Badges:
11
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
(Original post by Joe312)
The open question argument follows from Moore's views about 'goodness' being undefinable and the naturalistic fallacy.
A closed question in one which makes no sense to ask. E.g "does a triangle have three sides?". This could only be asked by someone ignorant of the meaning of 'triangle'.
However any claim about what goodness is will ultimately be an open question. A utilitarian could claim that goodness is happiness, however the question "is goodness happiness" remains open since goodness cannot be defined and therefore asking that question does not entail ignorance.
The open question argument follows from Moore's views about 'goodness' being undefinable and the naturalistic fallacy.
A closed question in one which makes no sense to ask. E.g "does a triangle have three sides?". This could only be asked by someone ignorant of the meaning of 'triangle'.
However any claim about what goodness is will ultimately be an open question. A utilitarian could claim that goodness is happiness, however the question "is goodness happiness" remains open since goodness cannot be defined and therefore asking that question does not entail ignorance.
0
reply
Ashley Laura
Badges:
11
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
(Original post by Joe312)
The open question argument follows from Moore's views about 'goodness' being undefinable and the naturalistic fallacy.
A closed question in one which makes no sense to ask. E.g "does a triangle have three sides?". This could only be asked by someone ignorant of the meaning of 'triangle'.
However any claim about what goodness is will ultimately be an open question. A utilitarian could claim that goodness is happiness, however the question "is goodness happiness" remains open since goodness cannot be defined and therefore asking that question does not entail ignorance.
The open question argument follows from Moore's views about 'goodness' being undefinable and the naturalistic fallacy.
A closed question in one which makes no sense to ask. E.g "does a triangle have three sides?". This could only be asked by someone ignorant of the meaning of 'triangle'.
However any claim about what goodness is will ultimately be an open question. A utilitarian could claim that goodness is happiness, however the question "is goodness happiness" remains open since goodness cannot be defined and therefore asking that question does not entail ignorance.
0
reply
gjd800
Badges:
20
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report
#5
(Original post by Ashley Laura)
Would you mind explaining naturalistic fallacy please? x
Would you mind explaining naturalistic fallacy please? x
It's a controversial way of using 'naturalistic fallacy' for many reasons, but that is nonetheless how he uses it.
This will provide more detail.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
