G. E. Moore
G. E. Moore 20th-century philosophy | |
---|---|
Region | Western philosophy |
School | Analytic philosophy Consequentialism |
Institutions | Trinity College, Cambridge Aristotelian Society (president, 1918–19) Ethical Union (president, 1935–36) |
Academic advisors | James Ward[1] |
Doctoral students | Casimir Lewy |
Other notable students | R. B. Braithwaite[5] |
Main interests | Philosophy of language |
Notable ideas |
|
George Edward Moore
As Professor of Philosophy at the
Life
George Edward Moore was born in Upper Norwood, in south-east London, on 4 November 1873, the middle child of seven of Daniel Moore, a medical doctor, and Henrietta Sturge.[12][13][14] His grandfather was the author George Moore. His eldest brother was Thomas Sturge Moore, a poet, writer and engraver.[12][15][16]
He was educated at
Moore is known best now for defending
Moore was an important and admired member of the secretive
From 1918 to 1919, Moore was chairman of the Aristotelian Society, a group committed to systematic study of philosophy, its historical development and its methods and problems.[22] He was appointed to the Order of Merit in 1951.[23]
Moore died in England in the
Philosophy
Ethics
His influential work
The naturalistic fallacy
Moore asserted that philosophical arguments can suffer from a confusion between the use of a term in a particular argument and the definition of that term (in all arguments). He named this confusion the naturalistic fallacy. For example, an ethical argument may claim that if an item has certain properties, then that item is 'good.' A hedonist may argue that 'pleasant' items are 'good' items. Other theorists may argue that 'complex' things are 'good' things. Moore contends that, even if such arguments are correct, they do not provide definitions for the term 'good'. The property of 'goodness' cannot be defined. It can only be shown and grasped. Any attempt to define it (X is good if it has property Y) will simply shift the problem (Why is Y-ness good in the first place?).
Open-question argument
Moore's argument for the indefinability of 'good' (and thus for the fallaciousness in the "naturalistic fallacy") is often termed the open-question argument; it is presented in §13 of Principia Ethica. The argument concerns the nature of statements such as "Anything that is pleasant is also good" and the possibility of asking questions such as "Is it good that x is pleasant?". 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 analysed, then such questions and statements would be trivial and obvious. Since they are anything but trivial and obvious, value must be indefinable.
Critics of Moore's arguments sometimes claim that he is appealing to general puzzles concerning analysis (cf. the
Good as indefinable
Moore contended that goodness cannot be analysed in terms of any other property. In Principia Ethica, he writes:
- It may be true that all things which are good are also something else, just as it is true that all things which are yellow produce a certain kind of vibration in the light. And it is a fact, that Ethics aims at discovering what are those other properties belonging to all things which are good. But far too many philosophers have thought that when they named those other properties they were actually defining good; that these properties, in fact, were simply not "other," but absolutely and entirely the same with goodness. (Principia, § 10 ¶ 3)
Therefore, we cannot define 'good' by explaining it in other words. We can only indicate a thing or an action and say "That is good." Similarly, we cannot describe to a person born totally blind exactly what yellow is. We can only show a sighted person a piece of yellow paper or a yellow scrap of cloth and say "That is yellow."
Good as a non-natural property
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 analyzable by "natural science".
Moral knowledge
Moore argued that, once arguments based on the naturalistic fallacy had been discarded, questions of intrinsic goodness could be settled only by appeal to what he (following Sidgwick) termed "moral intuitions": self-evident propositions which recommend themselves to moral thought, but which are not susceptible to either direct proof or disproof (Principia, § 45). As a result of his opinion, he has often been described by later writers as an advocate of ethical intuitionism. Moore, however, wished to distinguish his opinions from the opinions usually described as "Intuitionist" when Principia Ethica was written:
In order to express the fact that ethical propositions of my first class [propositions about what is good as an end in itself] are incapable of proof or disproof, I have sometimes followed Sidgwick's usage in calling them 'Intuitions.' But I beg that it may be noticed that I am not an 'Intuitionist,' in the ordinary sense of the term. Sidgwick himself seems never to have been clearly aware of the immense importance of the difference which distinguishes his Intuitionism from the common doctrine, which has generally been called by that name. The Intuitionist proper is distinguished by maintaining that propositions of my second class—propositions which assert that a certain action is right or a duty—are incapable of proof or disproof by any enquiry into the results of such actions. I, on the contrary, am no less anxious to maintain that propositions of this kind are not 'Intuitions,' than to maintain that propositions of my first class are Intuitions.
— G. E. Moore, Principia Ethica, Preface ¶ 5
Moore distinguished his view from the opinion of
Right action, duty and virtue
Moore holds that right actions are those producing the most good.[28] The difficulty with this is that the consequences of most actions are too complex for us to properly take into account, especially the long-term consequences. Because of this, Moore suggests that the definition of duty is limited to what generally produces better results than probable alternatives in a comparatively near future.[29]: §109 Whether a given rule of action is also a duty depends to some extent on the conditions of the corresponding society but duties agree mostly with what common-sense recommends.[29]: §95 Virtues, like honesty, can in turn be defined as permanent dispositions to perform duties.[29]: §109
Proof of an external world
One of the most important parts of Moore's philosophical development was his differing with the
Moore's paradox
Moore is also remembered for drawing attention to the peculiar inconsistency involved in uttering a sentence such as "It is raining, but I do not believe it is raining", a puzzle now commonly termed "Moore's paradox". The puzzle is that it seems inconsistent for anyone to assert such a sentence; but there doesn't seem to be any logical contradiction between "It is raining" and "I don't believe that it is raining", because the former is a statement about the weather and the latter a statement about a person's belief about the weather, and it is perfectly logically possible that it may rain whilst a person does not believe that it is raining.
In addition to Moore's own work on the paradox, the puzzle also inspired a great deal of work by Ludwig Wittgenstein, who described the paradox as the most impressive philosophical insight that Moore had ever introduced. It is said[by whom?] that when Wittgenstein first heard this paradox one evening (which Moore had earlier stated in a lecture), he rushed round to Moore's lodgings, got him out of bed and insisted that Moore repeat the entire lecture to him.
Organic wholes
Moore's description of the principle of the organic whole is extremely straightforward, nonetheless, and a variant on a pattern that began with Aristotle:
- The value of a whole must not be assumed to be the same as the sum of the values of its parts (Principia, § 18).
According to Moore, a moral actor cannot survey the 'goodness' inherent in the various parts of a situation, assign a value to each of them, and then generate a sum in order to get an idea of its total value. A moral scenario is a complex assembly of parts, and its total value is often created by the relations between those parts, and not by their individual value. The organic metaphor is thus very appropriate: biological organisms seem to have emergent properties which cannot be found anywhere in their individual parts. For example, a human brain seems to exhibit a capacity for thought when none of its neurons exhibit any such capacity. In the same way, a moral scenario can have a value different than the sum of its component parts.
To understand the application of the organic principle to questions of value, it is perhaps best to consider Moore's primary example, that of a consciousness experiencing a beautiful object. To see how the principle works, a thinker engages in "reflective isolation", the act of isolating a given concept in a kind of null-context and determining its intrinsic value. In our example, we can easily see that, of themselves, beautiful objects and consciousnesses are not particularly valuable things. They might have some value, but when we consider the total value of a consciousness experiencing a beautiful object, it seems to exceed the simple sum of these values. Hence the value of a whole must not be assumed to be the same as the sum of the values of its parts.
Works
- G. E. Moore, "The Nature of Judgment" (1899)
- G. E. Moore (1903). "IV.—Experience and Empiricism". Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 3: 80–95. .
- G. E. Moore, Principia Ethica (1903)
- G. E. Moore, "Review of Franz Brentano's The Origin of the Knowledge of Right and Wrong" (1903)
- G. E. Moore, "The Refutation of Idealism" (1903)
- G. E. Moore (1904). "VII.—Kant's Idealism". Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 4: 127–140. .
- G. E. Moore, "The Nature and Reality of the Objects of Perception" (1905–6)
- G. E. Moore (1908). "III.—Professor James' "Pragmatism"". Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 8: 33–77. .
- G. E. Moore (1910). "II.—The Subject-Matter of Psychology". Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 10: 36–62. .
- G. E. Moore, Ethics (1912)
- G. E. Moore, "Some Judgments of Perception" (1918)
- G. E. Moore, Philosophical Studies (1922) [papers published 1903–21]
- G. E. Moore, "The Conception of Intrinsic Value"
- G. E. Moore, "The Nature of Moral Philosophy"
- G. E. Moore, "Are the Characteristics of Things Universal or Particular?" (1923)
- G. E. Moore, "A Defence of Common Sense" (1925)
- G. E. Moore and F. P. Ramsey, Facts and Proposition (Symposium)(1927)
- W. Kneale and G. E. Moore, "Symposium: Is Existence a Predicate?"(1936)
- G. E. Moore, "An Autobiography," and "A reply to my critics," in: The Philosophy Of G. E. Moore. ed. Schilpp, Paul Arthur (1942).
- G. E. Moore, Some Main Problems of Philosophy (1953) [lectures delivered 1910–11]
- G. E. Moore, Ch. 3, "Propositions"
- G. E. Moore, Philosophical Papers (1959)
- G. E. Moore, Ch. 7: "Proof of an External World"
- "Margin Notes by G. E. Moore on The Works of Thomas Reid (1849: With Notes by Sir William Hamilton)".
- G. E. Moore, The Early Essays, edited by Tom Regan, Temple University Press (1986).
- G. E. Moore, The Elements of Ethics, edited and with an introduction by Tom Regan, Temple University Press, (1991).
- G. E. Moore, ISBN 0-534-51277-1.
See also
References
- ^ Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "James Ward". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. by Pierfrancesco Basile.
- ^ G. E. Moore (15 December 1919), "External and Internal Relations", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 20 (1919–20): 40–62.
- ^ G. E. Moore, "The Refutation of Idealism" (1903), p. 37.
- ^ Robert Hanna, Kant, Science, and Human Nature. Clarendon Press, 2006, p. 60.
- ^ Alice Ambrose, Morris Lazerowitz (eds.), G. E. Moore: Essays in Retrospect, Volume 3, Psychology Press, 2004, p. 25.
- ^ Preston, Aaron [in Swedish]. "George Edward Moore (1873—1958)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 19 August 2020.
- ^ a b Monk, Ray (3 April 2020). "He was the most revered philosopher of his era. So why did GE Moore disappear from history?". Prospect. London. Retrieved 21 June 2021.
- ISBN 0297775766.
- ISBN 9781316432136. Retrieved 29 April 2020.
- ^ Ahmed, Arif (6 September 2013). "The Moral Sciences Club (A Short History)". Faculty of Philosophy. University of Cambridge. Retrieved 29 April 2020.
- ^ "Annual Reports of the Ethical Union" (1946-1967). British Humanist Association, Series: Congress Minutes and Papers, 1913-1991, File: Minute Book. London: Bishopsgate Institute Special Collections and Archives.
- ^ ISBN 0297775766.
- ^ Gwynn, Frederick L. (1951). Sturge Moore and the Life of Art (PDF). Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press. p. 9. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 April 2018. Retrieved 15 February 2022.
- ^ "Father Daniel". The National Archives. Cambridge University Library: Department of Manuscripts and University Archives. Retrieved 16 February 2022.
- ^ Eminent Old Alleynians : Academe Archived 25 October 2007 at the Wayback Machine at dulwich.org.uk, accessed 24 February 2009
- ^ Baldwin, Tom (26 March 2004). "George Edward Moore". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University. Retrieved 29 October 2015.
- ^ Sheila Hodges, 1981, God's Gift: A Living History of Dulwich College, pp. 87–88, Heinemann: London.
- ^ "Moore, George Edward (MR892GE)". A Cambridge Alumni Database. University of Cambridge.
- ^ The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell (Volume I, 1872-1914), George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1971, p. 64. He added: "He had a kind of exquisite purity. I have never but once succeeded in making him tell a lie, and that was a subterfuge. 'Moore', I said, 'do you always speak the truth?' 'No' he replied. I believe this to be the only lie he ever told."
- ISBN 0879754982. Retrieved 29 October 2015.
- ^ Baldwin, Thomas (25 September 2020). "G. E. Moore: A great philosopher?". The Times Literary Supplement. London. Retrieved 13 October 2021.
- ^ The Aristotelian Society – The Council
- ^ "Three New Barons in Honours List". The West Australian. Perth, WA. 7 June 1951. p. 3. Retrieved 3 April 2023.
- OCLC 54778415. (Subscription or UK public library membershiprequired.)
- ^ Yau, John (11 January 2015). "Nicholas Moore, Touched by Poetic Genius". Hyperallergic. Retrieved 29 October 2015.
- ^ Marshall, Nicholas (10 March 2003). "Timothy Moore". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 March 2014.
- ^ Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Metaethics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. by Geoff Sayre-McCord.
- ISBN 0-631-18785-5.
- ^ a b c Moore, George Edward (1903). Principia Ethica. Project Gutenberg.
Further reading
- ISBN 978-0-03-053616-8.
- Klemke, E. D. (1999). A Defense of Realism: Reflections on the Metaphysics of G. E. Moore. Humanity Books. ISBN 1-57392-732-5.
- Daval, René. Moore et la philosophie analytique, 1997, Presses Universitaires de France (PUF), ISBN 978-2-13-048690-9
- ISBN 978-0877224464
External links
- George Edward Moore – philosophypages.com
- The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Works by G. E. Moore in eBook form at Standard Ebooks
- Works by G. E. Moore at Project Gutenberg
- Works by or about G. E. Moore at Internet Archive
- Works by G. E. Moore at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)
- Trinity College Chapel
- G. E. Moore and the Cambridge School of Analysis, Thomas Baldwin, The Oxford Handbook of The History of Analytic Philosophy
- Open Access papers by Moore published in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society and Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume.