Naturalism

Question 1

Background information

Answer 1

• Ethical values can be supported using evidence
• 17th century modern science started to challenge traditional world views
• Naturalism aimed to connect morals with scientific knowledge
• For a naturalist the source of everything is in the empirical world around them

Question 2

Main idea

Answer 2

• Moral values are based off natural properties
• Ethical naturalists believe that good and evil are absolute facts
• Morals aren’t just personal opinions - they are objectively true
  E.g. the dog is in the garden - can be verified by evidence

Question 3

Example one - Hitler

Answer 3

‘Hitler committed suicide in 1945’
‘Hitler was a bad person’
- the first statement is cognitive as it’s determined by evidence
- Ethical naturalists would also say the second statement is also cognitive as you can prove Hitler was a bad person

Question 4

Example two - Murder

Answer 4

The wrongness of the murder is as much of a fact that plunging a knife into the heart can stop it

Question 5

Bradley

Answer 5

• Wrote his version of naturalism in his book ‘ethical studies’
• he was interested in understanding the meaning of human existence
• knowing what is moral comes from understanding yourself and your role in society
• the way to realise our true self is through observation
• we should then adopt these values

Question 6

Strengths

Answer 6

• Based on what is natural - everyone can experience it
• Nature is universal so supports argument that morals can be universally known
• Presents a solid guideline people can follow

Question 7

Challenge - David Hume

Answer 7

• Believed that morality is based on feelings not reason
• we call things right or wrong because of how we feel, not because of logic
• We can’t move from statements about what is (facts) to what ought to be (moral rules) without adding something extra.
• Just because something is true doesn’t mean it should guide our actions

Question 8

Challenge - Moore - Naturalistic fallacy

Answer 8

• It’s wrong to define “good” as something natural like pleasure
• that’s called the naturalistic fallacy
• just because something feels good doesn’t mean it is good
• He believed you can’t go from facts to moral rules, because facts don’t tell us what we ought to do

Question 9

Challenge - Moore - Open question argument

Answer 9

• if good was natural the question ‘is pleasure good?’ would be a closed question like ‘is the sky blue?’