Ethics 76 (2):102-116 (
1966)
Copy
BIBTEX
Abstract
Non-Congnitivism relies for its defense upon g e moore's open question argument for a naturalistic fallacy. But this argument is invalid as applied to real definitions, Which are not analytic truths. G e moore's own conclusions about goodness are definitions in this sense. A definition of the good is possible. A valid one will allow for the non-Cognitivist's points that goodness reflects some pro-Attitude, That goodness is supervenient, And that goodness cannot be equated with the properties of a thing. An aristotelian, Naturalist definition in terms of a thing's natural perfections or potentialities meets these criteria while also making goodness knowable and objective. (staff)