Abstract
This essay is based on G. E. Moore's Principia Ethica, and is aimed at investigating how Moore shows the critiques of naturalistic Ethics and illustrates his point of view about Non-naturalistic Ethics. First, Moore explains what naturalistic Ethics is. Secondly, Moore points out naturalistic ethical philosophers, for instance, traditional ethical philosophers like Utilitarianistic and Hedonistic philosophers, who want to definite ethical 'good' as 'natural things' will make a mistake, what Moore called 'naturalistic fallacy', because ethical 'good' is, according to Moore, a pure, simple and indefinable concept. It is the same fault as Kant's Metaphysical ethics does, because it was wholly in the wrong to define 'good' as 'be willed'. It is not right to define 'good' as something or anything. To sum up, we can not define 'good' in any case, and, if you do so, Moore will refute with 'open question argument'. In short, whoever wants to define 'good' will leave these questions open. For these are not the exact answers, and the questions will bring about endless circular arguments.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
