The Open Question Argument by G.E. Moore

There are really many problems with my opponent"s case which are and are not limited to: 1. No justification of each premise. 2. Presupposes an internalist theory of motivation, which my opponent fails to justify. 3. Frege distinction between sense and reference Premise 1: If X is good, then X will in itself motivate an individual to pursue it. Premise 2: A cognitively sound and competent speaker of English (or whatever language the OQA is made in) can understand that Action X* produces X, yet not pursue X*. Conclusion: X is not (analytically equivalent to) good The biggest problem of my opponent"s case is that it fails to justify anything and therefore gives us no reason to adopt the argument. Suppose I were to tell you adopt Substance Dualism, and furthermore I provided a argument to support it such as the Argument from Reason by C. S. Lewis. If I simply provide premises in order to accept this conclusion but failed to explain the reasons why each premise is true then I have not provided adequate evidence to accept the argument. The intuitiveness of standard deductive argument is irrelevant when dealing with meta-ethical problems. One should assume that anyone could understand the argument as provided. Furthermore the problem with not explaining each premise can be explained in Zeno's Paradox. Imagine that Achilles and a tortoise were racing and the tortoise was given a slight head start. Now most people would say well Achilles will win. But in order for Achilles to win he has to catch up with the tortoise he has to reach where the tortoise started and by that time the tortoise has moved, and then he has caught up with where he was before, by then the tortoise would have moved by then, this paradox suggests (if taken to a extreme) that all motion is impossible. In response to this, Diogenes the Cynic simply got up and started walking showing how it was wrong but Diogenes did nothing because he couldn"t explain why it was wrong. Similar to my opponent case even IF(and that"s a big if) his argument is to be accepted, then we have no adequate explanations of the implications of such a argument. The next problem is that even if the premises" were written out and given reasons to believe the open question argument, this formulation while not begging the question assumes that Moral Internalism is true and is given supremacy. The fact is that my opponent failed to justify that morality is naturally appealing. If the internalist theory of morality is true then in moral psychology there exist no amoral people However,amoral people exist. Hitler for example clearly knew the idea of morality(many example are shown in Mein Kampf(my struggle)) but he wasn"t naturally motivated to be good or moral. The fact is that there is nothing self-contradictory about suggesting that someone my not to be personally inclined toward morality. Even if we accept internalism then we face the problem that to argue for special motivational effects is to commit to the fallacy of special pleading. Understanding of science doesn't naturally motivate one to do science. So my argument against this argument is: Premise 1. If the internal theory of truth is true, no amoral people exist. Premise 2. Amoral people exist. Therefore, the internal theory of truth is not true.