http://biehlblog.wordpress.com/

This problem is Kant’s (and Aristotle’s and every naturalist’s) no less than Mill’s. Is the respect for rational nature embodied by the commitment to consistency universal to that nature? If so, whence then is disrespectful inconsistency? If not, what identifies inconsistency (no less psychologically explicable than consistency) with immorality?

This challenge to naturalism is not so much Moore’s as it is Frege’s (who used it against naturalism in logic). Nonetheless, the two are not unrelated. There are, considered broadly, two alternatives to naturalistic realism (to use a rather silly term). We can assess the natural world, and find it wanting, by positing a non- or super-natural standard (Moore’s and Frege’s ‘primitivisms’ being instances of the former). This is the option of the faithful.

Alternatively, we can allow an indefinite number of standards, all of decidedly human provenance. Each such standard will remain forever open to the question of its own authority, that is, whether it is good or right or rational or what have you, and there will always be another standard waiting in the wings to say that it isn’t. But for that very reason will it be violable, which any standard that aims for practical relevance must necessarily be.

Which option we prefer is, ultimately, a matter of philosophical taste.