User:Igetthaloot/sandbox

Application to naturalist claims and formulations
Moore applied the open-question argument to specific naturalist claims of how good can be defined. When naturalists attempt to define "good" in terms of pleasure (Hedonism), evolution (Evolutionary ethics), or Metaphysics, Moore states that these naturalist views commit a Naturalistic fallacy, where they make the mistake of defining moral properties (e.g. goodness) with natural properties (e.g. pleasure, evolution, Metaphysics). Moore demonstrated how his open-question argument challenged these different naturalist proposals.

Moore presented the open-question argument in two different ways:

1. If a naturalist claim were true, then stating that "Pleasure is good" would be equivalent in stating that "Pleasure is pleasure." However, stating that "Pleasure is good" is meant to express more than just that uninformative tautology.

2. If a naturalist claim were true, then a statement like "x is pleasant but x is not good" would be self-contradictory. If it were known that x is pleasant, the question of whether it is good would be closed, but Moore argues that the question remains open.

These nuances in Moore's presentation of the argument expose the limitations of naturalist proposals and reveal the complexities in his approach to the open-question argument.

Citation