(August 15, 2019 at 8:12 pm)Belaqua Wrote:(August 15, 2019 at 7:23 am)Acrobat Wrote: In addition to categorising "good" as indefinable, Moore also emphasized that it is a non-natural property. This means that it cannot be empirically or scientifically tested or verified - it is not within the bounds of "natural science"."
-Wikipedia.
I completely agree with Moore here. And I think that the people arguing with you don't understand what's going on.
Just by chance I found this last night on a philosopher's blog:
Quote:— Hilary Putnam, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Harvard
And in other news, we'd been expecting this typhoon for a week and hearing how dangerous it is, and it passed over last night without even a power outage. All my roof tiles are still intact. It's almost disappointing.
Moore doesn't really clarify what he meant by "natural", and there are good counter answers to his open question argument. You're free to look them up online as they're readily available via Google.
Me personally, once you get to something like harm is bad, then there need not be any further questions. Harm is pretty much a bad thing morally. At some point you're going to have to accept that harm is bad, that it's a very fair axiom, that I need not be so stubborn that we need to first really really prove harm is bad. Are you an idealist by any chance? A solipsist?
