Search results
Jan 26, 2005 · Many of the view's partisans also rejected the calculating side of Moore's consequentialism, which identified right acts by adding up the goods and evils in their effects. Moral principles, they said, cannot be codified or theorized in this way.
Jan 26, 2005 · But whereas in the early 20th century Moore’s approach to ethics, and especially his metaethics, was dominant, at least in British moral philosophy, and whereas in the mid-century it was widely dismissed, it now represents, at several points, a valuable contributor to many lively ongoing debates.
McGill blames Moore’s approach to philosophy on his commitment to a method which was simply not suited to deal with other sorts of philosophical issues. In his reply to McGill, however, Moore rejects this idea:
One of the founding myths of analytic philosophy is that Moore and Russell refuted their idealist predecessors by deploying robust common sense and a new logic. As with most myths, there is some truth to this one.
- Thomas Baldwin
- 1984
Most of all, Moore's profound caution and sincerity in argument became the model for application of analytic methods in philosophy. Moore studied philosophy at Cambridge and Oxford with the idealistic philosophers McTaggart and Bradley, but soon declared his independence from their influence.
His approach to philosophy, proceeding on the basis that things don’t need to be complicated, was so radical that Moore was considered revolutionary – or alternatively, was dismissed as a naïve simpleton posing as a philosopher.
People also ask
Why does McGill reject Moore's approach to philosophy?
Why was Moore's moral philosophy considered non-natural?
Did Moore and Russell refute their idealist predecessors?
What was Moore's approach to philosophizing?
Sep 9, 2002 · He rejects Regan’s interpretation of Moore as offering a quasi-existentialist ethics. If ‘good’ is indefinable, then no algorithm can be provided to prove one ethical judgment against another.
