PHIL 440: Study Questions for Week #6 on Substantive Moral Realism

On G.E. Moore:

(1) What kind of definition of "good" is Moore seeking at the beginning of the reading?

(2) What is the difference between defining "good" and defining "the good" in Moore's sense of "define"?

(3) What is the analogy between "good" and "yellow" according to Moore? Can you think of any disanalogies?

(4) What is the analogy between "good" and "pleasure" according to Moore? Can you think of any disanalogies?

(5) Moore's argument that "good" cannot be defined is based on the claim that there is a difference in saying "Good is pleasure" (or "Pleaure is good") and saying "Pleasure is pleasure".

(6) What is a natural property? What is a non-natural property?

(7) Section 13 contains Moore's famous "open question argument". Pay close attention to both arguments (1) and (2). Can you explain the arguments?

The Moore reading ends with Section 13.

On Boyd:

The Boyd reading begins with Section 4. Section 4.1 begins with an overview of the arguments. Don't expect to understand the overview.

(1) Boyd's argument for moral realism is based on an analogy to science. As you are reading the article, take notes of each of the similarities between science and ethics that Boyd identifies.

(2) Boyd identifies five constraints on a realist conception of moral knowledge. What are they?

(3) Boyd says that his is a "naturalistic" moral realism. What is naturalism?

(4) What is homeostatic consequentialism? (What does "homeostatic" mean? Look it up, if you don't know. Also, be sure to read note 2 on pp. 133-134.)

(5) According to Boyd, what plays, in moral reasoning, the role played in science by observation? Explain.

(5) What are moral intuitions? What does Boyd mean by saying that moral intuitions are a species of trained judgment?

(6) What is the reflective equilibrium method?

(7) Why does Boyd say: "It is easier, not harder, to explain how moral knowledge is posiblethan it is to explain how scientific knowledge is possible"(126).

(8) What is Boyd's answer to G.E. Moore? Does Boyd commit the naturalistic fallacy?

(9) How does the example of the use of the term "species" in biology, before and after Darwin, illustrate Boyd's theory about how "good" can refer to the same thing, even if different people have different background theories about it?

(10) What does it mean for there to be a statement for which bivalence fails?

(11) What does Boyd think is shown by that fact that there are moral disagreements that are very hard to solve, or even that cannot be resolved?

(12) According to Boyd, what is the relation between moral facts and reasons? Is it a necessary connection? Would Nagel agree with Boyd? Explain.

(13) What is the role of sympathy in Boyd's account of moral knowledge? What is its cognitive role? What is its motivational role?