Read This First
If this page feels abrupt, start here
These links provide the wider frame, earlier distinction, or branch map that makes the current page easier to enter.
-
Meta-Ethics
Start here if the current page feels compressed: Meta-Ethics gives the broader frame before the argument narrows into the present pressure.
-
Ethics Branch Guide
If this page feels abrupt, start with the Ethics branch guide so the wider map is visible before the close reading begins.
Read This Next
If the page clicked, continue here
These are not just nearby pages. They are the strongest next moves if you want the pressure of this page to keep unfolding.
-
Coherent Moral Systems
Coherent Moral Systems keeps the same branch pressure in view but turns it from a different angle.
-
Moral Systems: Required Elements
Moral Systems: Required Elements keeps the same branch pressure in view but turns it from a different angle.
-
“Is” vs “Ought”
“Is” vs “Ought” keeps the same branch pressure in view but turns it from a different angle.
Prompt 1: It seems that many moral realists simply assume morality or define morality circularly in their defenses of their moral systems. Please provide a list of quote among moral philosophers that highlight this problem, along with commentary.
The complaint is that moral realism often smuggles morality into its own defense
The section works only if the reader can see how Allan Gibbard, It seems that many moral realists simply assume morality or define, and Quotes and Commentary on Circular Definitions in Moral Realism connect, compete, or depend on one another rather than collapsing into one blurred summary.
At the center is a simpler claim: (It may be that the philosophers cited have adequate rebuttals to these accusations of circularity.).
Allan Gibbard and It seems that many moral realists simply assume morality or define need to stay distinct here, because they answer different questions and carry different explanatory weight.
Run one live case through the structure. Ask how changing Allan Gibbard and It seems that many moral realists simply assume morality or define would alter the rest of the picture rather than merely relabel one box on the page.
A likely objection is that people often feel the moral pull of a case before they can analyze it cleanly. The section should grant that first intuition while still asking what justifies it and where it may mislead.
A stronger reader should be able to carry the central distinction into a neighboring case without needing the whole page repeated. The reader should come away able to say which part carries the weight and what shifts if that part is revised. That is what keeps the page connected to what moral claims are claiming, what could make them true or binding, and what follows if they are not rather than turning it into polished recap.
Quote “If I am asked, ‘What is good?’ my answer is that good is good, and that is the end of the matter.” Source: Principia Ethica (1903)
Commentary Moore’s definition of good as simply “good” is an example of circular reasoning. It doesn’t provide an external reference or criteria to understand what “good” is beyond its own definition, which is a common critique of moral realism.
Quote “Moral goodness is best understood as the property which satisfies the role of ‘goodness’ in the folk-theoretical commitments of a society.” Source: How to Be a Moral Realist (1988)
Commentary Boyd’s definition implies that moral goodness is defined by societal standards, which can lead to circularity. This perspective suggests that what is morally good is what a society believes to be good, which can be self-referential and lacks an independent standard.
Quote “The objective standpoint is, roughly, the standpoint of any rational being.” Source: The View from Nowhere (1986)
Commentary Nagel’s approach to moral objectivity ties it closely to rationality. This can be seen as circular if rationality is defined in moral terms, i.e., if rational beings are those who act morally, and moral actions are those performed by rational beings.
Quote “We have reasons to do what is rational, and reasons to do what is moral. These two kinds of reasons are often the same.” Source: On What Matters (2011)
Commentary Parfit’s assertion that rational and moral reasons are often the same can be seen as circular if it doesn’t provide an independent criterion for morality outside of rationality, especially if rationality itself is morally defined.
Quote “Moral facts are those which we would agree upon under conditions of ideal rational deliberation.” Source: The Moral Problem (1994)
Commentary Smith’s definition ties moral facts to ideal rational deliberation. This can lead to circularity if ideal rational deliberation presupposes moral understanding, thus not providing an independent grounding for moral facts.
Quote “Moral properties are not objectively prescriptive, but rather reflect subjective attitudes and conventions.” Source: Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (1977)
Commentary While Mackie is an error theorist and not a realist, his critique points out that many moral realists’ definitions of moral properties rely on subjective attitudes, which can create a circular definition by conflating moral properties with widely held beliefs or conventions.
Quote “To call something rational is to endorse it in the sense of normative endorsement.” Source: Wise Choices, Apt Feelings (1990)
Commentary Gibbard’s use of “normative endorsement” to define rationality can lead to circularity if normative endorsement is itself seen as a moral concept. Thus, rational actions are morally endorsed, and morally endorsed actions are rational, creating a circular relationship.
- Allan Gibbard: Many prominent moral philosophers, when defining moral concepts, often fall into circular reasoning by not providing independent criteria for these concepts.
- Semantic discipline: The page should ask whether the contested moral term names a fact, an attitude, a recommendation, a prohibition, or a social warning.
- Anti-realist burden: Denying stance-independent moral facts does not by itself erase reasons, empathy, law, criticism, or the need to live with other humans.
- Realist objection: If moral language is reconstructed as emotional or social practice, the page should explain why some condemnations feel non-negotiable.
- Practical residue: The question becomes how to criticize cruelty, coercion, or hypocrisy without pretending the criticism has floated down from an objective moral realm.
Prompt 2: For each of those 7 quotes, provide a reductio syllogism highlighting their circularity.
The map of Circularity becomes useful once the parts stop doing different work.
The section works only if the reader can see how G.E. Moore, Richard Boyd, and Thomas Nagel connect, compete, or depend on one another rather than collapsing into one blurred summary.
At the center is a simpler claim: Therefore, “good” is defined without any independent standard (R).
G.E. Moore and Richard Boyd need to stay distinct here, because they answer different questions and carry different explanatory weight.
Run one live case through the structure. Ask how changing G.E. Moore and Richard Boyd would alter the rest of the picture rather than merely relabel one box on the page.
Read Circularity, It seems that many moral realists simply assume morality or define, and Quotes and Commentary on Circular Definitions in Moral Realism as separate levers in the argument rather than as polished terminology. Keep moral language, motivation, and authority distinct even when they arrive together in ordinary speech.
A likely objection is that people often feel the moral pull of a case before they can analyze it cleanly. The section should grant that first intuition while still asking what justifies it and where it may mislead.
Quote “If I am asked, ‘What is good?’ my answer is that good is good, and that is the end of the matter.” Source: Principia Ethica (1903)
Premise Defining “good” as “good” provides no external criteria (Q).
Contradiction But defining a term should provide an independent standard (S).
Contradiction Therefore, defining “good” as “good” is circular (T).
Quote “Moral goodness is best understood as the property which satisfies the role of ‘goodness’ in the folk-theoretical commitments of a society.” Source: How to Be a Moral Realist (1988)
Premise If moral goodness is what society believes to be good (P).
Premise Society’s beliefs about goodness are based on their concept of moral goodness (Q).
Contradiction But this provides no external criteria for moral goodness (S).
Contradiction Therefore, Boyd’s definition is circular (T).
Quote “The objective standpoint is, roughly, the standpoint of any rational being.” Source: The View from Nowhere (1986)
Premise If the objective standpoint is the standpoint of any rational being (P).
Premise A rational being is one who adopts the objective standpoint (Q).
Contradiction But this provides no independent criteria for rationality (S).
Contradiction Therefore, Nagel’s definition is circular (T).
Quote “We have reasons to do what is rational, and reasons to do what is moral. These two kinds of reasons are often the same.” Source: On What Matters (2011)
Premise If we have reasons to do what is rational and what is moral (P).
Premise Rational actions are those we have moral reasons to perform (Q).
Contradiction But this provides no independent criteria for rationality or morality (S).
- G.E. Moore: Therefore, “good” is defined without any independent standard (R).
- Richard Boyd: Therefore, moral goodness is what is believed to be moral goodness (R).
- Thomas Nagel: Therefore, the objective standpoint is the standpoint of one who adopts the objective standpoint (R).
- Derek Parfit: Therefore, rational actions are moral actions (R). The argument has to keep moral feeling, social practice, and justificatory force distinct so the conclusion is not smuggled into the vocabulary.
- Michael Smith: Therefore, moral facts are those agreed upon under an understanding of moral facts (R).
- John Mackie: Therefore, moral properties are those defined by subjective attitudes and conventions (R).
Prompt 3: Write a short essay for each of those quotes that highlights the logical flaws in the quote.
The map of Essay 1: G.E. Moore becomes useful once the parts stop doing different work.
The section works only if the reader can see how Essay 1: G.E. Moore, Essay 2: Richard Boyd, and Essay 3: Thomas Nagel connect, compete, or depend on one another rather than collapsing into one blurred summary.
At the center is a simpler claim: The logical flaw here is that such a definition offers no explanatory power or clarity.
Essay 1: G.E. Moore and Essay 2: Richard Boyd need to stay distinct here, because they answer different questions and carry different explanatory weight.
Run one live case through the structure. Ask how changing Essay 1: G.E. Moore and Essay 2: Richard Boyd would alter the rest of the picture rather than merely relabel one box on the page.
Read It seems that many moral realists simply assume morality or define, Quotes and Commentary on Circular Definitions in Moral Realism, and G.E. Moore as separate levers in the argument rather than as polished terminology. Keep moral language, motivation, and authority distinct even when they arrive together in ordinary speech.
This reconstruction preserves the anti-realist pressure rather than translating it back into conventional moral realism. The curator's point is not merely that cultures disagree; it is that moral vocabulary may be doing emotional, social, and practical work without successfully referring to stance-independent moral facts. That view should not be softened into casual relativism; it is a sharper claim about what moral language is doing when it sounds as if it has discovered a property of the world.
“If I am asked, ‘What is good?’ my answer is that good is good, and that is the end of the matter.” Source: Principia Ethica (1903)
G.E. Moore’s statement, “If I am asked, ‘What is good?’ my answer is that good is good, and that is the end of the matter,” epitomizes the circular reasoning often critiqued in moral realism. This definition of “good” is inherently circular because it fails to provide any external or independent criteria for what constitutes “good.” By defining “good” solely in terms of itself, Moore does not elucidate what properties or characteristics make something good.
“Moral goodness is best understood as the property which satisfies the role of ‘goodness’ in the folk-theoretical commitments of a society.” Source: How to Be a Moral Realist (1988)
Richard Boyd’s definition of moral goodness as “the property which satisfies the role of ‘goodness’ in the folk-theoretical commitments of a society” introduces a form of circular reasoning that entangles moral concepts with societal beliefs. By tying moral goodness to societal commitments, Boyd’s definition implies that what a society deems good is, by definition, morally good. This approach does not offer an independent criterion for moral goodness, leading to logical circularity.
“The objective standpoint is, roughly, the standpoint of any rational being.” Source: The View from Nowhere (1986)
Thomas Nagel’s assertion that “the objective standpoint is, roughly, the standpoint of any rational being” introduces a circular definition that conflates rationality with objectivity in moral reasoning. According to Nagel, the objective standpoint is inherently tied to what a rational being would adopt, but this definition presupposes an understanding of both rationality and objectivity that lacks independent criteria.
“We have reasons to do what is rational, and reasons to do what is moral. These two kinds of reasons are often the same.” Source: On What Matters (2011)
Derek Parfit’s claim that “we have reasons to do what is rational, and reasons to do what is moral. These two kinds of reasons are often the same” introduces a potential circularity by conflating rational and moral reasons. This assertion implies that what is rationally justified is also morally justified, but it does not provide an independent criterion for either rationality or morality.
“Moral facts are those which we would agree upon under conditions of ideal rational deliberation.” Source: The Moral Problem (1994)
Michael Smith’s definition that “moral facts are those which we would agree upon under conditions of ideal rational deliberation” introduces a form of circular reasoning by tying moral facts to the process of rational deliberation. This definition presupposes an understanding of both moral facts and ideal rational deliberation without providing independent criteria for either.
“Moral properties are not objectively prescriptive, but rather reflect subjective attitudes and conventions.” Source: Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (1977)
John Mackie’s assertion that “moral properties are not objectively prescriptive, but rather reflect subjective attitudes and conventions” critiques moral realism by highlighting the subjectivity inherent in moral properties. While Mackie himself is an error theorist, his critique points out the circularity in many moral realists’ definitions.
“To call something rational is to endorse it in the sense of normative endorsement.” Source: Wise Choices, Apt Feelings (1990)
Allan Gibbard’s statement that “to call something rational is to endorse it in the sense of normative endorsement” introduces a form of circular reasoning by conflating rationality with normative endorsement. This definition presupposes that rational actions are those normatively endorsed, but it does not provide independent criteria for either rationality or normative endorsement.
What is the main critique of G.E. Moore’s definition of “good”?
What issue arises from Derek Parfit’s assertion about rational and moral reasons?
What is the main point of the critique of ethical realism on 1000-Word Philosophy?
How does the analysis of Shafer-Landau’s moral realism highlight circularity?
- Essay 1: G.E. Moore: The logical flaw here is that such a definition offers no explanatory power or clarity.
- Essay 2: Richard Boyd: The primary flaw in Boyd’s definition is that it relativizes moral goodness to societal norms without providing an external standard.
- Essay 3: Thomas Nagel: The logical flaw in Nagel’s definition is that it does not clarify what makes a standpoint rational or objective without referencing each other.
- Essay 4: Derek Parfit: The logical flaw in Parfit’s argument lies in the lack of a clear, independent definition for rationality and morality.
- Essay 5: Michael Smith: The logical flaw in Smith’s argument is that it does not explain what constitutes ideal rational deliberation without referencing moral facts.
- Essay 6: John Mackie: The logical flaw in Mackie’s argument, from a moral realist perspective, is that it relativizes moral properties to subjective attitudes and conventions.
What ties this page together.
The best route is to keep three questions apart: what people value, what a moral sentence means, and what could justify a demand on another person.
The live pressure includes moral realism, moral non-realism, divine command theory, human rights language, and the risk of smuggling an ought into premises that only describe what is.
Keep It seems that many moral realists simply assume morality or define, Quotes and Commentary on Circular Definitions in Moral Realism, and G.E. Moore in the same frame. That is what shows what the page is claiming, where it gets tested, and what would have to change if the claim is right.
Read this page as part of the wider Ethics branch: the prompts point inward to the topic, but they also point outward to neighboring questions that keep the topic honest.
- #1: What is the main critique of G.E. Moore’s definition of “good”?
- #2: According to Richard Boyd, how is moral goodness determined?
- #3: How does Thomas Nagel define the objective standpoint?
- Which distinction inside Circularity in Moral Realism is easiest to miss when the topic is explained too quickly?
- What is the strongest charitable reading of this topic, and what is the strongest criticism?
Deep Understanding Quiz Check your understanding of Circularity in Moral Realism
This quiz checks whether the main distinctions and cautions on the page are clear. Choose an answer, read the feedback, and click the question text if you want to reset that item.
Future Branches
Where this page naturally expands
Nearby pages in the same branch include Coherent Moral Systems, Moral Systems: Required Elements, “Is” vs “Ought”, and Meta-Ethics Focus #1; those links are not decorative, but suggested continuations where the pressure of this page becomes sharper, stranger, or more usefully contested.