| Revision as of 03:19, 7 July 2009 editTisthammerw (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,242 editsm →A Posteriori Identities← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:18, 8 July 2009 edit undo97.116.86.133 (talk) →Description: Better, more easily understandable introductory descriptionNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| ==Description== | ==Description== | ||
| The '''Open Question Argument''' is a philosophical ] put forward by the British philosopher ] in . |
The '''Open Question Argument''' is a philosophical ] put forward by the British philosopher ] in . The type of questions Moore refers to in this argument is an identity question, "Is it true that ''X'' is ''Y''?" Such a question is an ''open question'' if a conceptually competent speaker can question this, otherwise the question is ''closed.'' For example, "I know he doesn't eat meat but is he a vegetarian?" would be a closed question. However, "Is the ] the same thing as the ]?" is an open question; the question cannot be deduced from the conceptual terms alone. The Open Question Argument claims that any attempt to identify morality with some set of observable, natural properties will always be an open question (unlike, say, the color red, which can be defined in terms of observable properties). Moore further argued that if this is true, then moral facts cannot be reduced to natural properties, and that therefore ] is false. | ||
| The argument hinges on the nature of statements such as "Anything that is pleasant is also good" and the possibility of asking questions such as "That thing is pleasant but is it good?" According to Moore, these questions are ''open'' and these statements are ''significant''; and they will remain so no matter what is substituted for "pleasure". Moore concludes from this that any analysis of value is bound to fail. In other words, if value could be analyzed, then such questions and statements would be trivial and obvious. Since they are anything but trivial and obvious, value must be indefinable. | |||
| ==Objections and rejoinders== | ==Objections and rejoinders== | ||
Revision as of 02:18, 8 July 2009
 | This article may require cleanup to meet Misplaced Pages's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can. (November 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Description
The Open Question Argument is a philosophical argument put forward by the British philosopher G. E. Moore in §13 of Principia Ethica. The type of questions Moore refers to in this argument is an identity question, "Is it true that X is Y?" Such a question is an open question if a conceptually competent speaker can question this, otherwise the question is closed. For example, "I know he doesn't eat meat but is he a vegetarian?" would be a closed question. However, "Is the morning star the same thing as the evening star?" is an open question; the question cannot be deduced from the conceptual terms alone. The Open Question Argument claims that any attempt to identify morality with some set of observable, natural properties will always be an open question (unlike, say, the color red, which can be defined in terms of observable properties). Moore further argued that if this is true, then moral facts cannot be reduced to natural properties, and that therefore moral naturalism is false.
Objections and rejoinders
A Posteriori Identities
An important response to the open question argument by contemporary ethical naturalists (e.g., Peter Railton) is to understand a claim like "goodness is identical with pleasure" as an a posteriori identity claim on a par with "Water is H2O". The question "This is H2O but is it water?" is intelligible and so, in that limited sense, whether or not water is H2O is an open question, note that this does not address the issue of significance. But that does not lead us to conclude that water is not H2O. "Water is H2O" is an identity claim that is known to be true a posteriori (i.e., it was discovered via empirical investigation). Another example is "redness" being identical to certain phenomena of electromagnetism. This is discovered by empirical investigation.
Similarly, many moral naturalists argue that "rightness" being the property of "maximizing utility" is an a posteriori truth because we invoke rightness and wrongness to explain certain empirical phenomena, and then discover a posteriori that maximizing utility occupies the relevant explanatory role. For example, they argue that since right actions contingently have certain effects e.g. being causally responsible for a tendency towards social stability--so it follows we can fix the term "right" refer to the empirical description "the property of acts, whatever it is, that is causally responsible for their tendency towards social stability." With this description for "right," we can then investigate which acts accomplish this: e.g. those actions that maximize utility. We can then conclude that we have learned that "right" refers to "maximizing utility" through a posteriori means.
A rebuttal to this is that trying to find an a posteriori means to learn what morality is, such as in the above example, run into the Open Question Argument all over again. For example, it may be that we learn a posteriori that "redness" is identical to having certain electromagnetic properties, but first we must attach an initial, a priori definitional reference to the term "redness"--e.g. "that which produces the sensation 'red' to normal perceivers under standard conditions." Because the Open Question argument applies to all a priori statements of morality, it applies to the initial identity claim that "rightness" refers to "the property of acts, whatever it is, that is causally responsible for their tendency towards social stability." Whether rightness refers to that is an open question. The moral non-naturalist could argue that any attempt to make an initial identity reference for naturalistic morality is susceptible to the Open Question Argument.
Analytic Equivalence
A moral naturalist could respond to the above claiming that "rightness" is analytically equivalent (essentially, true by definition, much as 2 + 2 is equivalent to 4) to "the property of acts that is causally responsible for social stability," even if this equivalency does not appear obvious. From there, both sides could dispute the plausibility of such equivalence statements being true by definition.
Other Objections
Critics of Moore's arguments sometimes claim that he is appealing to general puzzles concerning analysis (cf. the paradox of analysis), rather than revealing anything special about value. Other responses appeal to the Fregean distinction between sense and reference, allowing that value concepts are special and sui generis, but insisting that value properties are nothing but natural properties (this strategy is similar to that taken by non-reductive materialists in philosophy of mind).
Notes and References
- The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, by Hugh LaFollette (Editor), p. 28
- The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, by Hugh LaFollette (Editor), p. 28
- The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, by Hugh LaFollette (Editor), p. 28
- The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, by Hugh LaFollette (Editor), p. 30
- The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, by Hugh LaFollette (Editor), p. 31