The Open Question Argument and Synthetic Identity

Abstract

G.E. Moore's Open Question Argument (OQA) is often considered refuted by the argument of synthetic identity. However, drawing on the works of Ball, Rosati, and Pigden, this paper reevaluates the contemporary significance of the OQA. I argue that the OQA should be reformulated not as an a priori metaphysical disproof of naturalism, but as a normative and epistemological constraint. The persistence of the "open question" serves as a diagnostic tool, revealing that naturalistic definitions have not yet permeated our linguistic intuitions or self-understanding as agents. Thus, the OQA remains a vital index for measuring the social and practical achievement of the naturalistic project.