 It is no accident that this all-purpose objection bears a family resemblance to Moore’s open question argument. And the best responses to it are similar to familiar responses to Moore. A substantive analysis of a philosophically interesting concept would not be informative if it were obviously correct. And nothing guarantees that the best analysis of a philosophically interesting concept will be obviously correct. Further, a metaphysical analysis of what the normativity of a worldly property or state of affairs could consist in is not likely to be a priori. The more informative and interesting a putative analysis is, the less likely it is that it will seem obviously correct, so the more it will seem open to objection. (See entries on  analysis  and  moral non-naturalism, section on the open question argument).