(August 16, 2019 at 7:39 am)Acrobat Wrote:(August 15, 2019 at 9:42 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Moore's argument is about that. Did you not mention Moore?
And I just checked your last post. What are you asking about then? You're not asking is killing a baby bad? Your last post contains that question, lol
ETA: I'm not saying you think killing babies is bad is questionable. I know you believe it's bad. I'm saying that your demand for strong proof is unreasonable and your suggestion that there must be something beyond natural about morality is unwarranted.
Furthermore, it just so happens that Moore is not really as non-naturalistic as he purports to be. He still thinks it's all natural in some sense. From what I read, he doesn't believe in some spooky reality that Acrobat does.
No that's not Moore's argument. Moore argument is just to show that "good" is a distinct concept from the object its being used as an adjective for.
Harm is bad. Isn't like a vegan is someone who doesn't eat meat. I couldn't say he's a vegan, who doesn't eat meat. Because that's just a meaningless tautology.
Bad is not synonymous with Harm. Or else you would just be saying harm is harm, or bad is bad, another meaningless tautology.
Saying harm is bad, is like saying the ball is yellow. Yellow and ball are two distinct concepts. A ball does not define Yellow, nor does Yellow define a ball. So that begs that question what is the nature of Yellow, or the nature of Good and bad?
Moore's claim is the referent of Good, is some real, but non-natural indefinable property.
Moore is saying that it's meaningful to ask the question "Is harm really bad?" unlike with say "is a bachelor an unmarried man?"
But doesn't matter anyway. The argument hasn't really been successful over time. Again, Google the counterarguments.
And Moore was nevertheless not a supernaturalist. There's no God in his position.
