Criticism of Open-ended argument
While the open-ended argument was accepted by many, it has also received a vast share of criticism. For instance, Ralph Barton, an American philosopher, argued that there is no value in something unless an individual desires something. No action or thing can be stated to have an intrinsic value, and therefore the premise lacks plausibility. The moral beliefs held by individuals are a byproduct of human evolution. As the world evolves, new experiences and knowledge seek to debunk previous arguments and beliefs, one of them being the moral properties of sound. According to Moore, the critics intend to state that the concept of good should be viewed as a product of evolution and not morality.
Other scholars argue against the open-ended argument stating that it creates doubt in statements that are already true. They state that Moore’s argument of good necessitates a reader to seek all the provided good explanations, yet they all amount to the same meaning. The result is increased doubt and confusion about the concept. Moreover, scientific research also argues that there are factual identity statements that cannot be considered synonymous. While the concept of good may fail to have specific properties, everyone understands the value of the statement. Therefore, there is no need for scientific experiments and empirical methods to test and evaluate the moral properties of sound.
Another critic argues that the open-ended narrative seems to want to prove too much that all questions related to natural moral identities are open. For instance, it is considered to be an obvious truth that all squares have four sides. However, the argument intends to provide a philosophical illumination that answers whether this obvious statement is true or false. The conclusion that this statement could be true or false in an open-ended argument can be very embarrassing for a modern philosophy who knows that the statement is true scientifically. Therefore, the critic argues that it is essential to follow up the statement with a meaningful explanation which will help create the statement to be an open one.
Conclusion
The open-ended narrative is at the heart of moral naturalism by Moore, who seeks to debunk the concept of ethical naturalism. The open question intends to question the moral and ethical properties that make up what is considered good or bad. Moore’s argument is not concerned with a Yes or No answer but rather the answers that help define the concept’s meaning. His argument has, however, received a lot of criticism as well as support. Some critics argue that the argument doubts concepts that are already clear and do not require much explanation. However, according to his supporters, people need to get the different versions and explanations of the moral properties that define good.
References