G.E. Moore believed that goodness could not be identified with pleasure. I believe it's important we begin by defining the word 'good' this has been our main contest for a very along time. Moore had difficulty in explaining what good is and what are characteristic of a good thing? When do you say this is good? In the present situation, we can define goodness as having positive attitude or qualities of a specific thing, which can be natural or unnatural. Moore suggested that anything good should have the force to pursue and feels that no natural being can acquire it (Kochuthara, 2007).
Moore's essays were written in a different setting from the present setting and environment. What was good during Moore's time has seen changed. During his time, there was more emphasis on the nature being, than the feeling of a human being. That is what led to the conclusion by Moore that goodness could not be indentified with pleasure or any natural property. We argue that any positive attitude can be expressed in terms of feelings hence goodness can be indentified with pleasure (Hinton, 2009).
Moore argued that goodness cannot be studied same to natural properties, but what happens when scientist make discovery that water is made up by the following elements; hydrogen, two elements of oxygen. Moore could not answer why that discovery went against his thought, and this leads us to the conclusion that part of Moore's essay needs to be withdrawn with immediate effect because it has been by past by events.
I feel Moore's essay was bias, deal by dealing only with one concept that of state affair and ignoring the broader field of values. Moore gave as an indirect understanding of morals in today's world that we should follow to the plain truth. Even in a compromised state just adhere to the general rules, like keep promises and do not kill (Kochuthara, 2007). Moore finally concludes by saying that pleasure and ideal values go together. Remember pleasure is good.