Are G.E. Moore's arguments in defence of common sense satisfactory? Give reasons.

Moore’s Defense of Common Sense

Moore’s defense of common sense rests on the idea that certain propositions are undeniably true, and that skepticism’s denial of these truths is absurd. He identified several such propositions, including “Here is one hand, and here is another,” and “The earth has existed for many years before my birth.” He argued that these propositions are known with a degree of certainty that surpasses any skeptical doubt. His ‘proofs’ weren’t intended as logical deductions, but rather as demonstrations of the obviousness of these truths.

The ‘Proof of an External World’

Moore’s most famous argument involves proving the existence of an external world. He presented three ‘proofs’:

• Proof 1: He held up his hands and stated, “Here is one hand, and here is another.” He then concluded, “Therefore, at least two external objects exist.”
• Proof 2: He argued that because he had felt the ground under his feet in the past, it follows that the ground exists now.
• Proof 3: He asserted that because he had known other people in the past, they must still exist.

Moore believed these proofs were conclusive because the premises were self-evident and the conclusions followed directly from them. He wasn’t attempting to convince someone who genuinely doubted the existence of an external world, but rather to demonstrate that such doubt was irrational.

Criticisms of Moore’s Arguments

The Charge of Circularity

A primary criticism leveled against Moore is that his arguments are circular. Critics argue that Moore assumes the very thing he is trying to prove – the existence of an external world – in his premises. For example, in the hand argument, he assumes the reality of his hands to prove the reality of external objects. This is akin to begging the question.

The Nature of ‘Common Sense’

Another criticism concerns the concept of ‘common sense’ itself. What constitutes common sense is culturally and historically contingent. What seems self-evident to one person or culture may not be to another. Furthermore, common sense can be demonstrably false. For instance, the common-sense belief that the earth is flat was once widely held, but is now known to be incorrect. Therefore, relying on common sense as a foundation for knowledge is problematic.

The Problem of Skepticism Remains

Moore’s arguments fail to address the underlying philosophical problem of skepticism. Skeptics don’t deny the *experience* of having hands or feeling the ground; they question whether these experiences reliably indicate the existence of an external world. Moore’s assertions simply reiterate the experience without addressing the skeptical challenge to its validity. He doesn’t offer a way to overcome the possibility of being systematically deceived, as in Descartes’ evil demon scenario.

Logical vs. Psychological Assertions

Critics like A.J. Ayer pointed out that Moore’s ‘proofs’ are psychological assertions about his own beliefs, rather than logical arguments. He is stating that *he believes* in the existence of an external world, not providing a logical justification for that belief. This shifts the focus from epistemology to psychology, and doesn’t resolve the skeptical problem.

Evaluating the Satisfactoriness of Moore’s Arguments

Moore’s arguments are ultimately unsatisfactory as a definitive refutation of skepticism. While his emphasis on the importance of common sense and the value of everyday experience is valuable, his ‘proofs’ are vulnerable to the criticisms outlined above. They fail to provide a logically sound basis for knowledge and don’t address the core skeptical concerns. However, Moore’s work is not entirely without merit. He effectively highlighted the absurdity of extreme skepticism and reminded philosophers of the importance of grounding philosophical inquiry in the realities of lived experience. His arguments served as a catalyst for further debate and helped to shape the development of analytic philosophy.