In the following essay, Ball argues that Moore's "open-question " against ethical naturalism is flawed but, ultimately, valid.

In the following excerpt, Harrison examines the influence of Moore's philosophy on the writings of Bloomsbury author E. M. Forster.

In the following essay, Heal advances the thesis that Moore's paradox makes more sense when approached with Wittgenstein's theory.

In the following essay, Falk attempts to clarify Moore's distinction between "good" and natural properties.

In the following essay, Ducasse challenges Moore's belief that esse (to be) is not necessarily percipi (to be perceived).

In the following essay, Broad, the author of the "Compound Theory of Materialistic Emergency, " argues against the validity of Moore's Principia Ethica.

In the following essay, Leddy examines Moore's refutation of idealism in light of the contemporary debate between analytic philosophy and deconstruction.

In the following essay, Malcolm recalls his personal interaction with Moore, finding him less imaginative than Bertrand Russell and less profound than Ludwig Wittgenstein but admiring his essay "Defence of Common Sense. "

In the following essay, Caton attempts an epistemological examination of Moore's paradox.

In the following essay, Grice applies Moore's paradoxes to other philosophical questions.

In the following essay, Linville and Ring apply Ludwig Wittgenstein's principles to Moore's paradox.

In the following excerpt, Steinberg examines elements of Moore's philosophy in the text of Virginia Woolf's novel To the Lighthouse.

In the following review of Tom Regan's Bloomsbury Prophet: G. E. Moore and the Development of His Moral Philosophy and a collection of Moore's early essays, Hampshire agrees with Regan's assessment that Moore's methodology was Platonic.

In the following essay, Jacobsen examines Virginia Woolf's Moorean analysis in her letters and diaries of love and friendship, based on the Bloomsbury Group's understanding of Moore's Principia Etnica.

In the following review, Klagge confesses to disagreeing with Moore's theories but commends Regan for explaining them more clearly than Moore.