The Open Question Argument
Philosophy is a pain. I never know the difference between my failing to understand something, and when something is internally confused. I find this clearest with the open question argument. I'm inclined to think that it's confused, but I really couldn't rule out that I'm missing something. Maybe others can help.
The open question argument, as I understand it:
1) If there is a true definition of something, then it is inconceivable to suggest that the definition is wrong. (e.g. One cannot sensibly debate whether all unmarried males are bachelors)
2) It will always be conceivable to dispute definitions of "good"
Therefore:
3) There is no definition for "good"
Obviously, it is, in a sense, inconceivable to deny a logical or semantic truth (i.e. (1)). But in the epistemic sense, it does seem as though humans can get logical and semantic truths wrong. It is epistemically conceivable to dispute logical and semantic truths. Wikipedia tells me that the set of natural numbers may be defined thus (Frege, Russell): "a natural number is the equivalence class of all sets under the relation of equinumerosity." Now this definition may be false, but is it really doomed from the outset, given that it's epistemically conceivable to deny it? Yet it claims the status of a semantic or logical truth. More broadly, this is termed the paradox of analysis: mere analysis of meaning can provide interesting results.
Perhaps in response to this, one could claim that with a full understanding of the concepts involved in the definition of natural numbers given above, it really would be inconceivable to deny it. But this leaves an obvious response to the open question argument: Why not claim that we don't fully understand the concept "good" or the concepts into which it is definable?
Further, (2) represents a very strong claim. How do we know in advance that it will always be conceivable to dispute any definition of "good"? Obviously the definitions so far have been disputable, but perhaps that just tells us what we know already: We've yet to find the right answer. No induction is possible here. But as some kind of a priori truth, I just can't see how one would justify this premise.
Is this understanding the open question argument the best? Are the criticisms valid and sound?
I'll repeat my standard qualification: There may be other reasons to think that good is indefinable. In fact, I'm tempted to say that there are. But the open question argument is not one.
Both valid and sound.
Your objection to 1 is fair. It makes sense to ask the question 'Are all bachelors unmarried, Daddy?' because the child doesn't understand the terms fully. It makes sense to ask, 'Is maximised utility the good' even if it is, because we don't fully understand these terms either, but that does not obviously make the claim that it is the good false.
Secondly, assumption 2 simply begs the question. Someone has made his mind up that good is undefinable and whatever definition you offer he will reject. He uses his own readiness to object to any definition as a proof that, 3 there is no definition.
That said, I think the argument can be used to make one reasonable claim. There is no other word which can be simply used instead of 'good' in our everyday communication. In that sense the concept of 'good' is unique, but is that philosophically relevant? Aren't all words unique in their connotations? Certainly 'bachelor' and 'unmarried man' are not always completely interchangable.
"Certainly 'bachelor' and
"Certainly 'bachelor' and 'unmarried man' are not always completely interchangable."
Could you give an example?
Al
There are two things.
There are two things. Firstly, we have widowers and divorcees: all bachelors are unmarried men but not all unmarried men are bachelors, which is a quibble really depending on your understanding of 'unmarried'. More importantly, we have certain connotations of the word 'bachelor'. Sometimes it may be understood as 'homosexual' or 'eccentric' but it's almost always used, as with spinster, about people who are of an age where they perhaps they ought to have been married already. It carries baggage which 'unmarried man' does not. Since all words pick up these nuances of meaning through regular use, it is hard to find two which are always interchangable wihtout any disturbance of meaning.