It proposes that the term “good” can be reduced to a some natural property N, where “natural” means roughly within the scope of natural sciences or psychology.

The main objection, as I understand it, is the need explicitly somehow to bridge the is-ought gap for N, whereas it is the very meaning of “good” that it ought to be or that one ought to bring it about.

As a result, the non-naturalists argue, since the properties of all N vs. goodness differ, no natural N is analytically “good.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *