- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Reductionism in Ethics and Science: A Contemporary Look at G. E. Moore's Open-Question Argument
American Philosophical Quarterly 25 (3):197 - 213 (1988)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)Author's Profile
My notes
Similar books and articles
In defence of the open question argument.Caj Strandberg - 2004 - The Journal of Ethics 8 (2):179-196.
Breathing life into a dead argument: G.e. Moore and the open question. [REVIEW]Andrew Altman - 2004 - Philosophical Studies 117 (3):395-408.
Themes From G. E. Moore: New Essays in Epistemology and Ethics.Susana Nuccetelli & Gary Seay (eds.) - 2007 - Oxford University Press.
Against Normative Naturalism.Matthew S. Bedke - 2012 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (1):111 - 129.
What's right with the open question argument.Susana Nuccetelli & Gary Seay - 2007 - In Susana Nuccetelli & Gary Seay (eds.), Themes From G. E. Moore: New Essays in Epistemology and Ethics. Oxford University Press.
The multiple realizability argument against reductionism.Elliott Sober - 1999 - Philosophy of Science 66 (4):542-564.
Moore's open question argument.Bruno Verbeek - 2011 - In Michael Bruce & Steven Barbone (eds.), Just the Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Arguments in Western Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell.
Knowing enough to disagree: A new response to the moral twin earth argument.Mark van Roojen - 2006 - In Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Volume 1. Clarendon Press. pp. 161-94.
Why Moore's open question is open: The evolution of moral supervenience. [REVIEW]Richmond Campbell & Jennifer Woodrow - 2003 - Journal of Value Inquiry 37 (3):353-372.
Reductionism about persons; and what matters.Tim Chappell - 1998 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 98 (1):41-58.
Moral and epistemic open-question arguments.Chris Heathwood - 2009 - Philosophical Books 50 (2):83-98.
Analytics
Added to PP
2011-05-29
Downloads
182 (#103,786)
6 months
4 (#698,851)
2011-05-29
Downloads
182 (#103,786)
6 months
4 (#698,851)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
Evolutionary naturalism and the objectivity of morality.John Collier & Michael Stingl - 1993 - Biology and Philosophy 8 (1):47-60.
Moore’s Open Question Maneuvering: A Qualified Defense.Jean-Paul Vessel - 2020 - The Journal of Ethics 24 (1):91-117.
Does empirical moral psychology rest on a mistake?Patrick Clipsham - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 170 (2):215-233.
Evolution, explanation, and the fact/value distinction.Stephen W. Ball - 1988 - Biology and Philosophy 3 (3):317-348.
The Open Question Argument: What it Isn’t; and What it Is1.Fred Feldman - 2005 - Philosophical Issues 15 (1):22–43.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-6d9b7f7c4c-v4fj8 uwo