George Edward Moore

1. Introduction

George Edward Moore (1873–1958) was an English philosopher whose work helped inaugurate analytic philosophy in the Anglophone world. He is widely associated with three interconnected contributions: a non-naturalist and intuitionist account of ethics, a robust realism about the external world, and a distinctive appeal to common sense as a constraint on philosophical theorizing.

Moore’s best-known book, Principia Ethica (1903), argued that the property good is simple, indefinable, and non-natural. Against attempts to equate goodness with pleasure, desire-satisfaction, evolutionary fitness, or divine commands, he claimed that such identifications commit what he termed the naturalistic fallacy. This work shaped 20th‑century metaethics, influencing both later intuitionists and many of their critics.

In metaphysics and epistemology, Moore opposed British Idealism, which treated reality as fundamentally mental or spiritual. Moore defended a mind-independent world composed of ordinary objects and facts, and insisted that many everyday propositions—such as that there are external objects, that other human beings exist, and that there has been a past—are things we genuinely know. His famous “here is a hand” reasoning in “Proof of an External World” became emblematic of his anti-skeptical stance and gave rise to the so‑called Moorean shift in argument.

Methodologically, Moore’s writings exemplify a piecemeal, problem-by-problem approach, marked by careful distinctions, close attention to ordinary language, and an insistence that philosophical theories not overturn the deliverances of common sense. Although he produced no unified system, his essays and lectures exerted substantial influence on contemporaries such as Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein, as well as on later developments in analytic philosophy.

Moore’s work remains a reference point in discussions of ethical non-naturalism, realism, epistemic justification, and the role of ordinary language and common sense in philosophy. Contemporary assessments typically situate him as a central but contested figure in the formation of the analytic tradition.

2. Life and Historical Context

Moore was born on 4 November 1873 in Upper Norwood, Surrey, into a middle‑class professional family. His upbringing was conventionally Victorian, with an emphasis on education, seriousness of purpose, and moral rectitude. After schooling at Dulwich College, he entered Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1892, initially reading Classics before turning to philosophy and psychology.

His adult life was closely tied to Cambridge. He was awarded a prestigious Prize Fellowship at Trinity in 1898, which enabled full-time philosophical work. In 1916 he married Dorothy Ely, with whom he had two sons. Apart from a brief period teaching at Morley College in London (1914–1916) and wartime civil service work, his career was centered at Cambridge, where he became Professor of Philosophy in 1921 and remained until retirement in 1939. He died in Cambridge on 24 October 1958 following complications from a fall and surgery.

Historically, Moore’s early intellectual formation coincided with the dominance of British Idealism, represented at Cambridge by figures such as J. M. E. McTaggart and influenced nationally by F. H. Bradley and T. H. Green. Moore’s rejection of idealism, together with that of Bertrand Russell, formed part of a broader shift in British philosophy around the turn of the century toward realism, logic, and analysis.

His active years also overlapped with major social and political changes: the decline of the British Empire, two world wars, and the rise of new scientific and logical methods. Proponents of his work often locate Moore within a wider “Cambridge school of realism,” while historians of philosophy sometimes treat him as a transitional figure between 19th‑century metaphysical systems and the more austere, linguistically oriented philosophies of mid‑20th‑century analytic thought.

As editor of Mind (1921–1947, with a war‑time break), Moore occupied an institutional position from which he helped define the standards and style of English‑language academic philosophy during a period of professionalization and specialization.

3. Education and Cambridge Milieu

Moore’s philosophical development was deeply shaped by his education at Trinity College, Cambridge. Entering in 1892 to study Classics, he soon encountered the dominant neo-Hegelian climate of Cambridge philosophy. Teachers and examiners such as J. M. E. McTaggart exposed him to versions of Absolute Idealism, in which reality is construed as an all‑encompassing spiritual or mental whole.

As an undergraduate, Moore joined the Cambridge Apostles, an elite discussion society whose members included Bertrand Russell. The Apostles’ meetings provided a forum for intense, informal debate and are widely regarded as crucial to Moore’s early questioning of idealist doctrines. Participants later reported that Moore’s insistence on clarity, his suspicion of grand metaphysical systems, and his attention to what could really be said with confidence began to take shape in these discussions.

Moore’s formal philosophical training initially involved close study of Plato, Aristotle, and the British Idealists. Examiners rewarded essays that showed fluency in the idealist idiom, and Moore himself produced early work consonant with it. However, during the mid‑1890s he and Russell became increasingly dissatisfied with idealist monism and its treatment of truth and judgment. From this period date Moore’s early manuscripts that move toward a realist account of propositions and judgment.

In 1898 Moore was awarded a Prize Fellowship at Trinity, providing financial independence and time for research. This institutional security enabled him to elaborate his criticisms of idealism and to develop his own views in ethics and metaphysics. Cambridge at the time was also a center for the new symbolic logic associated with Russell and, later, with Wittgenstein; though Moore did not work in formal logic himself, he interacted daily with this emerging culture of exactness and argumentation.

The Cambridge milieu also included a broader intellectual and artistic circle: economists such as Alfred Marshall, mathematicians including G. H. Hardy, and, somewhat later, members of the Bloomsbury Group, who were influenced by Moore’s ethical writings. In this environment, philosophy was practiced as a collaborative, conversational enterprise, with supervisions, informal seminars, and college societies playing a major role alongside formal lectures.

4. Break with British Idealism

Moore’s break with British Idealism occurred in the late 1890s and early 1900s, marking a pivotal transition in both his own thought and the wider trajectory of British philosophy. Initially sympathetic to idealist themes, he came to reject the core doctrines that reality is fundamentally mental, that relations are ultimately internal to an all‑inclusive Absolute, and that ordinary objects lack genuine independence.

A key step was his early essay “The Nature of Judgment” (1899), where Moore argued that judgment relates a mind to an independent proposition, not to a mental content whose existence depends on being thought. This move challenged the idealist claim that subject and object are ultimately moments within a single spiritual whole.

Moore’s explicit attack appears in “The Refutation of Idealism” (1903). Focusing on the idealist slogan esse est percipi (“to be is to be perceived”), he targeted the analysis of experience encapsulated in the formula “the object exists in the act of being perceived.” His central contention was that from the introspective fact that awareness of an object is inseparable from awareness of one’s own experience, it does not follow that the object is dependent on that experience for its existence.

"

“That which is experienced is fundamentally distinct from the experience of it.”

— G. E. Moore, The Refutation of Idealism (paraphrased central claim)

Moore maintained that consciousness and its objects are distinct entities, and that sensations or ideas cannot be identified with the external things they represent. He also argued—against idealists such as F. H. Bradley—that relations are genuine and can hold between independently existing terms, rather than being mere abstractions within an undivided Absolute.

Proponents of Moore’s anti-idealist turn see it as a decisive shift toward metaphysical pluralism and realism, restoring independent status to physical objects, propositions, and facts. Critics, both contemporary and later, have questioned whether Moore adequately engaged with the more sophisticated strands of Hegelian thought, or whether he simplified idealist positions in order to refute them. Some historians also emphasize that idealism in Britain was already under internal pressure, and that Moore’s role, while important, formed part of a broader and more complex transformation of the philosophical scene.

5. Intellectual Development and Phases

Scholars typically divide Moore’s intellectual career into several overlapping phases, each marked by shifts of focus rather than radical discontinuities.

Early Formation and Anti-Idealist Realism

In his student and early fellowship years, Moore moved from idealist assumptions toward a realist theory of propositions and judgment. Essays like “The Nature of Judgment” and “The Refutation of Idealism” expressed a pluralistic ontology of distinct entities—minds, propositions, physical objects—and inaugurated his distance from monistic, Absolute‑oriented metaphysics.

Ethical Non-naturalism and Intuitionism

With Principia Ethica (1903), Moore’s focus shifted to ethics and metaethics. He developed the view that goodness is a simple, non-natural property and advanced the open question argument against reductive definitions. During this phase he also elaborated the notion of organic unities and defended an intuitionist epistemology of value.

Realism, Perception, and Common Sense

From roughly 1910 to 1930, Moore devoted more attention to epistemology and the philosophy of perception. In essays such as “The Nature and Reality of Objects of Perception” and “A Defence of Common Sense,” he combined a realist account of external objects with an inventory of common-sense propositions that he claimed we know with certainty. His teaching and lectures, later published as Some Main Problems of Philosophy, belong to this period.

Later Epistemology and Anti-Skeptical Arguments

In his later work, culminating in “Proof of an External World” (1939) and posthumously published lectures like “Four Forms of Skepticism,” Moore refined his views on knowledge, certainty, and evidential priority. He developed explicit anti-skeptical strategies—sometimes labeled Moorean shifts—which contrast the certainty of ordinary propositions with the more doubtful premises of skeptical arguments.

Commentators disagree on how unified Moore’s development is. Some emphasize continuity in his commitment to realism and common sense, while others note tensions between his earlier theory of concepts and propositions, his ethics, and his mature epistemology.

6. Major Works and Publications

Moore wrote no single systematic treatise, but a series of influential books, papers, and lecture courses. The following table summarizes his major works commonly referenced in scholarship:

Principia Ethica

This is Moore’s most widely discussed work. It introduced the naturalistic fallacy, the open question argument, and the view that good denotes an indefinable non-natural property. It also offered substantive views on what things are intrinsically good and how to assess the value of “organic unities.”

Articles in Mind and Other Journals

Many of Moore’s crucial contributions appeared as articles, particularly in Mind. These essays—on topics such as sense-data, belief, and skepticism—have been collected in volumes like Philosophical Studies and Philosophical Papers. Scholars often treat these articles, rather than any single book, as the primary vehicles of his philosophy.

Lectures and Posthumous Works

Moore’s lectures at Cambridge, including those later published as Some Main Problems of Philosophy, were influential on generations of students. Posthumous publications, like “Four Forms of Skepticism,” have been mined for refinements in his later epistemological stance and for insight into his evolving conception of philosophical method.

7. Method, Style, and Philosophical Approach

Moore’s philosophical method is often cited as paradigmatic of early analytic philosophy. It combines an emphasis on clarity, piecemeal analysis, and respect for common sense.

Analytical and Non-Systematic Method

Moore typically approached problems one at a time rather than constructing a unified system. He sought to clarify the meaning of key terms, distinguish between closely related claims, and identify hidden assumptions in arguments. Proponents of this method see it as inaugurating a style of philosophy focused on logical and conceptual analysis rather than speculative metaphysics.

He often recommended starting from ordinary uses of words and from propositions that we are least likely to doubt, then working outward. This approach underlies his anti-skeptical strategy of preferring “more certain” common-sense premises to the more abstruse assumptions of philosophical theories.

Style: Plainness and Self-Criticism

Moore’s prose is characteristically plain and meticulous. He frequently rehearsed possible objections to his own claims, admitted uncertainty where he felt it, and sometimes refrained from drawing strong conclusions. Admirers regard this as exemplifying intellectual honesty; critics sometimes complain of excessive hesitation and lack of systematic closure.

"

“It seems to me that the only certain way of refuting a philosophical proposition is by discovering another proposition which is inconsistent with it and which is, in fact, more certain.”

— G. E. Moore, “Four Forms of Skepticism”

Appeal to Common Sense

A salient feature of Moore’s approach is his appeal to common-sense beliefs as starting points. He maintained that some ordinary propositions—for example, that human beings have bodies and have existed for many years—are known more surely than the premises of arguments that purport to show we cannot know them. This Moorean shift reverses the direction of philosophical doubt: rather than letting a theory overturn common sense, the theory is rejected when it conflicts with what is more certain.

Relation to Logic and Language

Although Moore was not a logician in the technical sense, his method was shaped by the emerging logical rigor at Cambridge. He used informal but careful arguments, focusing on the logical relations between propositions and on the analysis of concepts. Later commentators sometimes contrast his relatively modest use of formal logic with the more ambitious logical programs of Russell and early Wittgenstein, while noting that his insistence on precise argumentation helped set norms for the analytic tradition.

8. Ethics and Metaethics

Moore’s ethical thought, especially as articulated in Principia Ethica, occupies a central place in 20th‑century metaethics. His distinctive blend of ethical non-naturalism, intuitionism, and analysis of intrinsic value has been both influential and controversial.

Ethical Non-Naturalism and the Nature of Good

Moore held that good names a simple, indefinable, non-natural property. It is simple in that it has no constituent parts and cannot be analyzed into more basic concepts; indefinable in that any attempted definition either changes the subject or commits what he called the naturalistic fallacy; and non-natural in that it is not identical to any natural or psychological property studied by the sciences.

Intuitionism and Moral Knowledge

In epistemological terms, Moore was an ethical intuitionist. He claimed that we can know certain basic moral truths by a kind of non-inferential intuition or direct awareness, analogous (in his view) to our recognition of simple properties like color. This does not mean moral insight is infallible, in his account, but that it is not typically derived from empirical observation or logical demonstration.

Proponents of Moorean intuitionism emphasize its ability to explain the seeming irreducibility of moral properties and the apparent objectivity of moral judgments. Critics raise questions about the reliability, psychological basis, and intersubjective testability of the alleged moral intuitions.

Intrinsic Value and Organic Unities

Moore distinguished between what is intrinsically good—good “in itself” or “for its own sake”—and what is good as a means. He defended the view that states of affairs like aesthetic appreciation or personal affection have intrinsic value, and argued that the value of a whole may differ from the sum of the values of its parts, a doctrine he called organic unity.

"

“The value of a whole must not be assumed to be the same as the sum of the values of its parts.”

— G. E. Moore, Principia Ethica (paraphrased)

This notion allowed Moore to address complex moral situations where context changes evaluative status, such as the difference between enjoying beauty innocently and taking pleasure in another’s suffering.

Influence on Later Ethical Theory

Moore’s metaethical framework influenced subsequent intuitionists (e.g., W. D. Ross) and shaped the agenda for logical positivists and emotivists, who often defined their own positions partly in opposition to Moore’s non-naturalism. His substantive value judgments—especially his high regard for aesthetic and personal goods—also had cultural resonance, notably within the Bloomsbury Group, although scholars disagree about the extent to which this reception accurately reflected his more technical philosophical claims.

9. The Naturalistic Fallacy and Open Question Argument

Within Principia Ethica, Moore introduced two influential ideas: the naturalistic fallacy and the open question argument. These have played a major role in 20th‑century debates about the reducibility of moral properties.

The Naturalistic Fallacy

Moore used the term naturalistic fallacy for what he regarded as a common mistake: identifying the property of goodness with any natural or metaphysical property, such as pleasure, desire-satisfaction, evolutionary fitness, or being commanded by God. He argued that even if all and only good things in fact have some natural property (e.g., pleasure), it does not follow that goodness is identical with that property.

"

“It may be true that all things which are good are also something else … But far too much has been assumed, when it is assumed that this something else is, in fact, what we mean by good.”

— G. E. Moore, Principia Ethica, §10

According to Moore, treating such identity claims as mere definitions confuses a substantive moral thesis with a conceptual truth.

The Open Question Argument

The open question argument is Moore’s primary tool against definitional reductions of “good.” For any proposed definition—say, “good” = “pleasurable”—he contends that it remains an intelligible, non-trivial question whether all pleasurable things are good or whether this particular pleasurable thing is good. Because such questions are “open” rather than analytically closed, he concludes that “good” cannot be synonymous with the proposed term.

Supporters of the argument maintain that it captures the apparent autonomy of the moral domain: normative questions persist even when we know all the natural facts. Critics have raised several responses:

Despite these challenges, the naturalistic fallacy and open question argument continue to be central reference points in discussions of moral reductionism, non-naturalism, and the semantics of ethical terms.

10. Metaphysics and Realism

Moore’s metaphysics is best known for its robust realism about the external world, propositions, and facts, coupled with a rejection of idealist monism. Although he did not construct a comprehensive system, certain commitments recur across his writings.

Ontological Pluralism and Propositions

Against the monistic Absolute of British Idealism, Moore defended a pluralistic ontology: there are many distinct kinds of entities—physical objects, minds, propositions, and properties. In early work such as “The Nature of Judgment,” he treated propositions as objective entities that exist independently of being thought or expressed. A judgment, on this view, is a relation between a mind and a proposition that is either true or false.

Proponents of this view argue that it allows a straightforward account of truth and falsity and helps explain how different people can believe the same thing. Critics have worried about the metaphysical status of propositions as abstract entities, and about tensions between Moore’s early theory of propositions and his later, more modest discussions of language and belief.

Realism about Physical Objects and Perception

In confronting questions about perception, Moore adopted positions that varied in detail over time but consistently aimed to secure the reality of mind-independent objects. In some works he accepted sense-data—immediately given objects of awareness—while insisting that these are distinct from, and evidence for, external things like tables and chairs. In others, he moved closer to a direct realist stance, emphasizing that we genuinely perceive external objects themselves.

His realist metaphysics holds that ordinary objects persist when not perceived, have properties like shape and size independently of observers, and stand in causal and spatial relations that do not depend on any particular mind.

Common-Sense Ontology

In essays like “A Defence of Common Sense,” Moore proposed a list of common-sense propositions that, taken together, describe a familiar ontology: human beings with bodies, spatially extended objects, other minds, and a temporal order of events. He argued that any philosophical view incompatible with this body of beliefs is less certain than they are and should be rejected.

Some commentators see this as an implicit metaphysical realism anchored in everyday life. Others hold that Moore blurred the line between epistemology and metaphysics by inferring an ontological picture from claims about what we know.

Relation to Later Metaphysics

Moore’s realism anticipated many later debates about sense-data, direct realism, and the status of abstract entities. While some of his specific ontological commitments (such as his treatment of propositions) have been widely questioned, his insistence on a mind-independent world and on the legitimacy of common-sense ontology continues to inform realist positions in contemporary metaphysics.

11. Epistemology and Common Sense

Moore’s epistemology is often characterized as common-sense foundationalism, grounded in the conviction that many everyday propositions are more certain than the philosophical arguments that appear to undermine them.

Common-Sense Knowledge

In “A Defence of Common Sense,” Moore listed propositions such as:

"

“I have at different times in the past been in contact with and have perceived many different material objects; that I am a human being; that other human beings have existed and do exist.”

— G. E. Moore, “A Defence of Common Sense”

He claimed not only that these statements are true, but that we know them to be true. His argument strategy was to contrast the security of such ordinary beliefs with the less secure premises of skeptical or idealist positions. When the two conflict, he advocated retaining the common-sense claims and rejecting the skeptical conclusion—an argumentative pattern later dubbed the Moorean shift.

Criteria for Knowledge and Certainty

In “Proof of an External World” and later works, Moore suggested informal criteria for saying that one knows something: the proposition must be true; the person must believe it; and there must be some sort of evidence or ground for the belief. He did not, however, develop a detailed theory of justification or address systematically the possibility of systematic deception.

Proponents of Moore’s stance see it as highlighting the asymmetry of doubt: we cannot reasonably doubt everything at once, and some propositions function as fixed points in our epistemic practices. Critics argue that Moore simply reasserted common-sense claims rather than answering the skeptic on their own terms, or that he ignored questions about how we are entitled to those claims.

Responses to Skepticism

Moore engaged various forms of skepticism: doubts about the external world, other minds, the past, and the existence of material bodies. His method in “Four Forms of Skepticism” was to show that skeptical premises are less plausible than the common beliefs they threaten. For instance, the hypothesis that there is no external world is, in his view, less credible than the proposition that he has two hands.

Later epistemologists have interpreted Moore’s approach in different ways:

These diverging interpretations illustrate the ongoing significance and contested status of Moore’s epistemology.

12. The Proof of an External World

Moore’s 1939 paper “Proof of an External World” presents his most famous anti-skeptical argument. There he aimed both to demonstrate that external objects exist and to illustrate what he took to be a rigorous philosophical proof.

Structure of the Proof

Moore’s proof is strikingly simple. He holds up one hand and says, “Here is one hand,” then holds up another and says, “And here is another.” From these premises he infers, “Therefore, at least two external things exist.”

He claimed that this argument satisfies three conditions of a rigorous proof: (1) the premises are different from the conclusion; (2) the conclusion follows logically from the premises; and (3) the premises are known to be true. On this basis, he concluded that he had indeed proved the existence of external objects.

"

“Here is one hand, and here is another; therefore, at least two external things exist.”

— G. E. Moore, “Proof of an External World”

Aims and Interpretations

Moore’s demonstration had two principal aims:

1. To show that some propositions about the external world are known with certainty.
2. To illustrate that skeptical arguments typically rest on premises that are less certain than the common-sense propositions they challenge.

Supporters interpret the proof as highlighting the epistemic priority of everyday knowledge over philosophical theory. It exemplifies the Moorean shift: rather than concluding that “I don’t know that I have hands” from skeptical hypotheses, Moore takes the fact that he knows he has hands as a reason to reject those hypotheses.

Criticisms and Philosophical Responses

The proof has attracted extensive criticism. Skeptics argue that Moore begged the question by assuming precisely what is in doubt: that his perceptual experiences correspond to external objects. Others contend that even if the argument is logically valid, it does not address the skeptical challenge concerning our justification for believing the premises.

Ludwig Wittgenstein’s later work, especially On Certainty, engages closely with Moore’s arguments. Some interpreters read Wittgenstein as criticizing Moore for misunderstanding the nature of epistemic certainty and for treating what Wittgenstein calls “hinge propositions” as items of knowledge rather than as ungrounded certainties underpinning language-games. Others see Wittgenstein as clarifying and extending Moore’s insights about the role of common-sense propositions.

Contemporary epistemologists continue to debate whether Moore’s proof successfully counters skepticism, whether it exemplifies an externalist approach to knowledge, and what it reveals about the relationship between ordinary epistemic practices and philosophical demands for justification.

13. Moore and Ordinary Language

Although Moore is not usually classified as an ordinary language philosopher in the same sense as later Oxford figures, his work exhibits a sustained concern with ordinary usage and the nuances of everyday speech.

Attention to Common Uses

Moore frequently examined how words like “know,” “good,” and “real” are used in ordinary contexts. He considered this attention vital for avoiding confusion in philosophical debates. His discussions often began by presenting examples of uncontroversial sentences and asking what we mean when we use them. This practice influenced later analytic philosophers who took ordinary language as a primary data source for philosophical analysis.

In his epistemological writings, Moore stressed that when we say “I know that this is a hand,” we use the term “know” in its everyday sense, which, he contended, suffices to undercut skeptical claims that we do not know such things.

Clarification Rather than Therapy

Unlike some later figures influenced by Wittgenstein, Moore did not view philosophy as a form of linguistic therapy designed to dissolve problems by exposing confusions in language. Instead, he treated ordinary usage as evidence about the concepts we employ, while allowing that philosophical analysis might revise or refine our understanding.

Proponents of this approach highlight Moore’s work as a forerunner of conceptual analysis that respects ordinary language without granting it absolute authority. Critics sometimes argue that his reliance on everyday usage lacks an articulated theory of meaning and that he underestimated the ways in which common speech can embody philosophical assumptions.

Influence on Ordinary Language Philosophy

Historians often credit Moore, alongside Russell, with shaping the analytic style that made later ordinary language philosophy possible. His meticulous differentiation of senses, insistence on avoiding confusion between similar expressions, and reliance on examples provided a model for subsequent work at Cambridge and Oxford.

However, there are important differences. Ordinary language philosophers such as J. L. Austin and Gilbert Ryle often pursued more systematic linguistic case studies, whereas Moore tended to use language examples more sparingly and in direct service of substantive metaphysical or epistemological theses.

Despite these differences, Moore’s engagement with ordinary language is widely regarded as a bridge between earlier logic‑centered analysis and later, more linguistically oriented approaches in 20th‑century philosophy.

14. Relations to Russell, Wittgenstein, and Analytic Philosophy

Moore’s career intersected closely with those of Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein, and his work is widely considered foundational for analytic philosophy as a movement.

Moore and Russell

Moore and Russell were contemporaries and collaborators at Cambridge. Both rejected British Idealism and helped establish a realist and analytical approach. Their early conversations, especially in the Cambridge Apostles, reportedly played a major role in each other’s intellectual development.

Some historians emphasize Moore’s influence on Russell’s turn away from idealism, especially regarding propositions and truth. Others stress their differences: Russell pursued a more mathematically oriented logicism, while Moore concentrated on conceptual clarification and everyday knowledge.

Moore and Wittgenstein

Moore’s relationship with Wittgenstein was complex. As a senior figure at Cambridge, Moore supported Wittgenstein’s early career, and Wittgenstein, in turn, respected Moore’s honesty and seriousness while criticizing aspects of his philosophy.

Wittgenstein’s later work, particularly On Certainty, consists largely of reflections triggered by Moore’s anti-skeptical papers. Some interpreters see Wittgenstein as refuting Moore by arguing that certain “Moorean” propositions (“I have two hands”) function not as items of knowledge but as hinges that underlie meaningful doubt. Others argue that Wittgenstein and Moore share a fundamental focus on the bedrock of ordinary practices, differing mainly in how they describe its epistemic status.

Role in the Emergence of Analytic Philosophy

Moore’s influence on analytic philosophy is often characterized as methodological and institutional rather than doctrinally systematic. As editor of Mind and professor at Cambridge, he helped entrench norms of clarity, argumentative rigor, and detailed analysis. His work, alongside that of Russell and early Wittgenstein, is commonly cited as constitutive of an “analytic” style distinct from Continental traditions.

There is debate about how to rank Moore’s importance among the founders of analytic philosophy. Some scholars emphasize Russell’s and Frege’s contributions to logic as more decisive, viewing Moore mainly as a moral philosopher and popularizer of clarity. Others argue that Moore’s rejection of idealism and his elevation of common-sense propositions substantially shaped the subject-matter and tone of analytic debates, especially in epistemology and ethics.

Overall, Moore is widely recognized as a central figure in the early analytic movement, even as interpretations vary concerning the depth and nature of his influence compared with Russell and Wittgenstein.

15. Criticisms and Contemporary Reassessment

Moore’s philosophy has attracted a wide range of criticisms, and recent scholarship has reassessed both the strengths and limitations of his work.

Critiques of Ethical Non-Naturalism

Moore’s ethical non-naturalism and intuitionism faced early challenges from emotivists and logical positivists, who rejected the idea of non-natural moral properties and construed moral judgments as expressions of emotion or prescriptions rather than statements of fact. Later naturalists argue that moral properties can be identified with higher-level natural properties (e.g., well-being), and that Moore’s open question argument misinterprets the relation between conceptual analysis and property identity.

Some contemporary philosophers, however, have revived versions of moral non-naturalism, sometimes citing Moore as a precursor while modifying his views in light of developments in the philosophy of language and metaphysics.

Objections to Common-Sense Epistemology

Moore’s appeals to common sense and his “proof” of the external world have been criticized as question-begging or insufficiently reflective. Skeptics argue that repeating “Here is a hand” does not address deeper worries about illusion, deception, or the underdetermination of theory by evidence. Internalist epistemologists question whether Moore provides an adequate account of how we are justified in our common-sense beliefs.

Interpretations influenced by Wittgenstein sometimes fault Moore for treating certain basic propositions as items of knowledge rather than as preconditions for doubt and inquiry. Others defend Moore as highlighting legitimate constraints on skepticism, even if his explicit arguments are judged incomplete.

Debates about Method and System

Some commentators contend that Moore’s piecemeal approach and reluctance to build a system resulted in unresolved tensions among his views—for example, between his early abstract ontology of propositions and his later emphasis on ordinary language. Others see his persistent re-examination of key issues as a virtue, exemplifying philosophical modesty and openness to revision.

Historically oriented scholars have also debated whether Moore’s attack on British Idealism adequately represented its strongest versions, or whether his success in reshaping the curriculum overshadowed valuable aspects of the idealist tradition.

Contemporary Reassessment

Recent work in the history of analytic philosophy has tended to reintegrate Moore into a broader narrative that includes Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and the Idealists he opposed. Some reassessments highlight his importance as a bridge figure, whose concerns about common sense, ordinary language, and skepticism anticipate later developments. Others suggest that Moore’s detailed arguments are less central today than the methodological stance they represent.

While there is no consensus on the overall philosophical merits of Moore’s positions, contemporary scholarship generally recognizes both their historical impact and their continuing relevance as touchstones in debates about realism, ethics, and the nature of philosophical inquiry.

16. Legacy and Historical Significance

Moore’s legacy is multifaceted, spanning methodological, doctrinal, and institutional dimensions within 20th‑ and 21st‑century philosophy.

Methodological Influence

Moore’s insistence on clarity, careful argument, and attention to ordinary beliefs helped define the ethos of analytic philosophy. His practice of breaking down complex problems into manageable parts and testing theories against common-sense propositions became a model for subsequent work in epistemology and ethics. Many historians regard this methodological legacy as his most enduring contribution.

Impact on Ethics and Metaethics

In ethics, Moore’s articulation of the naturalistic fallacy, the open question argument, and the idea of organic unities set the agenda for much of 20th‑century metaethics. Even theorists who reject his non-naturalism frequently frame their positions in relation to his ideas. Contemporary debates about moral realism, reductionism, and non-natural properties often treat Moore as a foundational figure, though usually in modified or critical terms.

Role in Epistemology and Anti-Skepticism

Moore’s appeals to common sense and his “here is a hand” reasoning have remained central reference points in discussions of skepticism and epistemic justification. Later proposals, such as Moorean responses to skeptical scenarios and the notion of hinge propositions, continue to engage with themes he foregrounded, even when reinterpreting or revising his conclusions.

Institutional and Cultural Significance

As a long-serving professor at Cambridge and editor of Mind, Moore helped shape the institutional landscape of professional philosophy in the English-speaking world. His lectures influenced generations of students who went on to play major roles in analytic philosophy. Beyond academic philosophy, Principia Ethica had an impact on early 20th‑century British culture, including the Bloomsbury Group, which took inspiration—sometimes selectively—from his discussions of intrinsic value and the good life.

Place in the History of Analytic Philosophy

Historians of philosophy typically position Moore among the founders of analytic philosophy, alongside Frege, Russell, and early Wittgenstein. There is ongoing debate about the comparative weight of his contributions: some regard him as primarily a moral philosopher whose other work is of secondary importance; others see him as a key figure in the transition from idealism to realism and from system-building to analytic problem-solving.

In contemporary scholarship, Moore is often treated as a reference point and interlocutor rather than as a source of ready-made doctrines. His work continues to be studied both for its historical role in reshaping Anglophone philosophy and for its enduring challenges to naturalism, skepticism, and the relation between philosophy and common sense.