Why is good indefinable and what is moore's definition of they naturalistic fallacy? Moore has a very unique version of good.
Maybe because he spent 40 years researching the general idea of good or maybe its not."All distribution of praise or blame to any personage or thing that has existed, now exists, or will exist does give some answer to the question"What is good?" There are far to many people, events and discussions to question if something is good or is it bad.If you asked Moore what is the meaning of "good" he would reply that "good" is "good" and that is they end of it.
In this quote Moore does a excellent job of why good cannot be explained " "Good" is a simple notion, just as "yellow" is a simple notion; that, just as you cannot, by any manner or means, explain to anyone who does not already not it, what yellow is, so you cannot explain what "good" is."What he's trying to say is that you can only tell some one the qualities of "good" and after you explain the qualities of good you cannot break those qualities down even more.Like a horse ! if someone asked you what a horse was you could describe the many features a horse has but after you describe it you can not break it down any more than that.
I also think that moore spent too much time researching the idea of"good" he really gives you the big picture of what is "good" compared to other philosophers that try to really break down the idea of good.I'm sure that Moore did too, but after researching it for so long I think he got frustrated and gave up.But I do believe moore's statements are to be true.
And to the next question of"What is Moore's definition of the Naturalistic Fallacy" Moore believes that the definition of the Naturalistic Fallacy is " any attempts to define good, weather as &quo…