Abstract

G. E. Moore argued that goodness is not identical to any natural properties on the basis of the Open Question Argument. John Duns Scotus agrees, and for the same reason, at least with respect to transcendental being and goodness. Because it is not a “useless repetition” to say that being is goodness, or vice versa, they are not simply identical. Thus, Scotus rejects run-of-the-mill naturalism and avoids Moore's naturalistic fallacy. However, Scotus holds that “being is goodness,” and vice versa. He therefore denies Moore's ultimate conclusion that goodness is independent of anything properly described under non-evaluative descriptions.