he objected to the method of
argumentation many moral theorists
employed
listing a set of facts such as 'stealing is the taking
of someone else's property' to justify a value claim
such as 'stealing is wrong'
switch from factual to value language was not justified or logical
this illogical jump would suggest that we can value anything we like, as
the two satements (factual and value-based) are never truly logically
linked
G.E. Moore
Open Question Argument
Moore argues that there are three
possible conclusions
one can draw about the
nature of the word good:
'Good' = definable
Moore argues here that when
attempting to define good, one
has to come up with a word
equation, good = x,
however, unlike with the equation,
bachelor+ unmarried male which is a
closed statement, any definition of
good can always be questioned, 'but is
x really good?'
thus it is an open question, and undefinable.
'Good' = meaningless
dismisses this immediately, as if it was meaningless we
would not discuss morality at all
'Good' = indefinable
we are forced to conclude that good is indefinable
Naturalistic Fallacy
Problems
Moore's own alternative is not particularly convincing