عنوان مقاله [English]
Open Question Argument is a turning point in met-ethics. Using OQA, Moore accused all previous meta-ethical theories of being disfigured by a fallacy. While his argument received a lot of criticism, some philosophers see a very important point in it, which has not been conveyed well. Gibbard, Raliton, and Darwall (1992) tried to change the argument to save it. They think Expressivism is the only meta-ethical theory which passes the new form of argument. In the article, we show that Expressivism is not the only triumphant. We talk about two different versions of OQA, the amended form and the new form. In the end, we claim that the only way to have Expressivism as the only victorious of passing OQA is to use both versions together, which means none of the versions alone can challenge all Expressivism's rivals. Using the new form you can get all theories into trouble except for Expressivism and Subjectivism. Then, we use the amended form to challenge Subjectivism too.