Naturalism

Question 1

Ethical Naturalism

Answer 1

• Morality and what is right/wrong can be found in natural world around us
• Ethical statements are factual + cognitive, meaning they are objective, therefore meaningful
• Morality cannot be established by anything outside our senses i.e. supernatural authority (God -> DCT)

Question 2

Explanation of Naturalism

Answer 2

• Both ethical + non-ethical statements are of equal value, can be verified by empirical evidence -> factual, cognitive, meaningful
• ‘My car is white’ - use senses to verify truth
• ‘Hitler was a bad man’ - built concentration camps, death of 6M Jews, gas chambers etc
• 1st non-ethical statement, no EL associated, factual proposition
• 2nd factual, verified using EE
• Illustrates ethical propositions cognitive (meaningful as can be verified with EE)

Question 3

Ethical Naturalism in practice

Answer 3

• EL established from experiences’ of world (kindness ‘good, cruelty ‘bad’ from past experiences)
• Kindness verified good (happiness), cruelty verified bad (brings pain)
• Can verify experiences, ethical descriptions universal
• Can make universal cognitive statements (murder is bad), can verify -> become ethical truths

Question 4

Link to Utilitarianism

Answer 4

• Mill (Rule) relies on previous experiences to assess moral rules to apply today
• Deontological rules based on what actions create max amounts of happiness/pleasure
• Supports idea people should put interests of group before their own, also supported by naturalism

Question 5

F.H. Bradley Background

Answer 5

• Wrote version of ethical naturalism in 1876 book ‘Ethical Studies’
• Chapter 5 ‘My Station and its Duties’ addresses naturalism
• Not directly naturalist theory, based on naturalist principles

Question 6

Bradley Theory Background

Answer 6

• Interested in understanding meaning of human existence
• Rejected Bentham’s Act Util -> not enough emphasis on individual
• Rejected Kant’s theory (should always follow duty) -> not enough on community
• Bradley’s theory takes ideal middle ground
• Polemical of theory (Hegelian tradition), accepted evolution may mean some sense of inherited ethics

Question 7

Empirical Study of our Community

Answer 7

• Meaning of human existence = self realisation we are individual within a community
• “To know what a man is you must not take him in isolation” - Bradley
• Ethics about developing ‘self’ in context of community in which you live
• “Yes, we have found ourselves, when we have found our station and its duties, our function as an organ of the social organism” - Bradley
• Realise true self through empirical study, adopt values of community
• Satisfy ‘self’ by fulfilling ideal role in society indicated by empirical observations
• Erase self-isolation, become true selves + functioning, useful member of community

Question 8

Ethical Language

Answer 8

• All ethical action should be about self-realisation
• Naturalism supports:
  1- Knowledge can only be gained through empirical study of world
  2 - Follow ethics of community
• “Morality exists around us” - Bradley, only part of natural world, EO
  3 - “To be a ‘good’ person, we must know our station and its duties, once your position in life is decided, you have to perform the functions of that station”
• ‘Good’ purely based on verifying statements with EO
  4 - Found station in community -> follow ethics of that role

Question 9

Challenge - David Hume’s Law (is-ought problem)

Answer 9

• Critical ethical propositions could be verified by EE -> just a value judgement
• ‘Hitler is bad’ = value judgement of EE
• VJ disqualifies EPs from being facts
• Logically absurd to move from ‘what is’ (fact) to ‘what ought’ (VJ)
• Cannot move from ‘John was murdered’ to ‘you ought not to murder’
• Completely different types of proposition, one cannot lead to the other
• Naturalism wrong -> EPs lack meaning

Question 10

George E. Moore

Answer 10

• Argued against naturalism in 1903 book ‘Principia Ethics’
• Proposed ‘Naturalistic Fallacy’ and ‘Open Question’ arguments

Question 11

Moore - Naturalistic Fallacy

Answer 11

• EL terms (‘good’ ‘bad’) indefinable, not complex
• Can’t be reduced to empirically studied definitions, already in simplest form
• Example -> yellow indefinable, impossible to describe as not complex, cannot break down further to create definition
• Same applies to EL terms
• ‘Good is just good’ in the same way that ‘yellow if just yellow’
• EPs cannot be verified with EE, EL cannot be empirically defined
• “I am asked “‘what is good?’ my answer is that good is good, and that is the end of the matter
• Can only know ethical terms through intuition

Question 12

Moore - Open Question Argument

Answer 12

• EL terms cannot be used as factual statements, cannot define empirically
• Any attempt of empirical definition reduces idea of it
• E.g. ‘bad = cruel’ limits meaning of bad to cruel, means more, can mean a cheat etc
• EL terms examples of open ended questions (cannot be defined in simple, straight-forward way)
• Colour of wall = closed question, answered empirically
• ‘What is good?’ = open question, cannot be answered in straight-forward empirical way
• Moore -> ethical naturalists assume EL terms closed questions

Question 13

Strength - Universal

Answer 13

• Ethical propositions are objective so morality is universal
• Gives more importance than just being matter of human opinion

Question 14

Strength - Scientific

Answer 14

• Allows ethical claims to be tested in scientific way
• Gives morality strong foundation -> importance

Question 15

Strength - Absolutist

Answer 15

• Gives morality set of absolute universal propositions, e.g. murder is wrong
• Matches some principles of normative ethics (NL, Rule Util)