Greetings,
Most of my reply to Magnus applies to your last posting Platt.
">Then how do you know the primary good exists? Because you are it--
>�direct everyday experience�--as Pirsig says."
Yes, Magnus did say much the same thing but I'm quite happy to consider that the MoQ
is a form of
non-naturalism for the sake of argument and it is, or seems to be, after all, all
things said and
done, the position of Moore. (How is your German teacher Magnus?) Let me, with your
co-operation,
explore what you think.
A few questions to get to the bottom of this.
1) Is this, "direct everyday experience," synonymous with intuition?
2) Can we ascertain what is good from empirical evidence? (Supplementary question
concerns the
nature of empirical evidence, but we might leave that aside for the moment)
3) If we can, then how?
4) How does Q2 & 3 square with non-naturalism?
And, finally, to your hypothetical question. I suspect that GE Moore would agree with
you that the
fallacy is moot (as are all discussions amongst those who agree) and so would consider
it a little
strange that you ask a question based on an ethic he rejects.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
