Short answer

Name
Professor
Course
Date
Question one
Moore is comparing good and yellow regarding simple notions. He says that one cannot explain ‘good’ to a person who does not even know what the term yellow means. He says good is used to indicate the quality of something. Since good is a property of something, therefore it’s a simple term that cannot be analyzed. For instance, Moore gives examples of colors whereby e defines green as a combination of yellow and blue. However, color ‘yellow’ being the primary color we cannot explain it using other terms rather than itself. He later says that when someone wants to do something, he or she looks at the analysis of both intrinsic goodnesses and on the resulting goodness (Ayer 105).
Question two
According to Moore naturalistic fallacy is trying to define something based on its natural nature other than using other natural terms to define it. For instance, he said that it is often a mistake to define the term ‘good’ using some properties that are natural hence the term naturalistic. He gives an example of nature giving people diseases and sickness; he, therefore, says that is wrong when we interfere with nature by treating sick people with medicine. One of the consequences is that the naturalistic fallacy lacks a rational basis. In addition to that is ‘ought problem’ whereby it involves morality, for instance, a challenge of explaining moral realistic.
Question three
According to Ayer, people cannot give verifications of absolutism. Therefore it is clear that it is challenging to say whether a given moral statement is true or false.

For instance, based on the traditional evidence that stealing is wrong is considered as a true statement. Since people have different moral intuitions, therefore it can be said that the evidence is unreliable. Rejecting moral absolutism give reasons as to why people accept non-cognitivism (Ayer 106).

Work cited
Ayer J., A. Language, Truth and Logic, Volume 1. Courier Corporation, 2012. Print.