Non-Naturalism

Question 1

Why prefer non-naturalism? (hint* there are 5!)

Answer 1

1. intuitive
   it’s not just that i disapprove, society disapproves, or there’s a disagreement in moral rules — it’s JUST WRONG!
2. captures the benefits of cognitivism. We can easily explain moral thought and language: we talk and think about morality as if it were real because it is real!
3. universal moral principles
   they’re out there in the world, we just have to find them
   lots of similarity exists
4. moral consensus: moral progress
   things are getting better morally
   less “blips” / moral wrongness as there once was
   there are less of the greatest moral evils
   you can only have moral progress if non-naturalism is real
   before you have progress there has to be a worse thing and a better thing — this would only make sense if there are worse things and better things (unlike relativism, noncognitivism, noncognitivism)—it says NO, there are objectively worse things and better things
5. The open question argument
   non-naturalism can respond to this argument by changing P4 and C2 to something like:
   P4: If ‘X’ does not mean the same thing as ‘Y’ then X is SOME NON-NATURAL PROPERTY
   C2: evaluative property X is SOME NON-NATURAL PROPERTY

Question 2

What is the principle of phenomenal conservatism and what is the argument for it?

Answer 2

All else equal, it is reasonable to believe that things are as they appear
if it seems to S that P, then S has at least prima facie justification for believing p.

Question 3

What are some misconceptions about non-naturalism, how does Huemer resolve them? (Hint* there are 5)

Answer 3

1.intuitions are in general common
2+2=4 you just know with your mind, morality you just know with your mind

2.some intuitions provide better reasons than others

3.intuitions are fallible
you can be wrong about your intuitions

4. intuitions are prima facie
   when we have an intuition we have reason to accept a certain belief all else equal, but this belief could be overridden

5.cintuitions are not beliefs

Question 4

What is Huemer’s argument for non-naturalism?

Answer 4

pretty much the self-defeat argument
P1: one is justified in rejecting PC only if it seems true to them that it is false
P2: if P1 then one can deny PC only on pain of contradiction
P3: if one can deny PC only on pain of contradiction, then PC is true
C: PC is true

Question 5

What is the motivation puzzle for non-naturalism and how does Huemer respond?

Answer 5

Pt1: Cognitivism (realist style)
P1: IF we are concerned to get ethical questions right, then ethical judgments express beliefs (and thus, realism is true)
P2: we are concerned to get ethical questions right
C: So ethical judgments express belief (and thus, realism is true)

Pt2: Moral Judgment internalism
P1: If one judges something right then they will be motivated to do it
P2: beliefs do not motivate → a belief is a way of describing the world
C: moral judgments are not beliefs

huemer argues against P2 of Pt2 (the idea that beliefs do not motivate) really only need to know the second response
First Response (Response 1): He explains that only ordinary beliefs do not motivate. but, he explains, concluding that all beliefs do not motivate from that fact is poor reasoning
EX: when beliefs don’t match reality we change belief (beliefs aim at the truth)
Second Response: His argument is the idea that beliefs about mind independent intrinsically prescriptive facts do not motivate. Normal beliefs do not motivate, but moral beliefs do because they are of special content

Question 6

What is Korgaard’s arbitrariness objection?

Answer 6

her argument goes as follows:
P1: mind independent intrinsically prescriptive properties would themselves be morally arbitrary
if the world doesn’t have any reason for making pain from bad things, and murder the wrong thing, I have no reason to disvalue the bad thing or refrain from the wrong thing
P2: If mind independent intrinsically perspective properties would themselves be morally arbitrary, then moral judgments would themselves be arbitrary on non-naturalism
C1: Moral judgments would themselves be arbitrary on non-naturalism

Question 7

how is Korsgaard’s arbitrary claim related to the claim of agency on Huemer’s view?

Answer 7

something is arbitrary if there’s no reason for it
according to Korsgaard, non-naturalism can’t answer the question: why be moral
this question ought to be authoritative and explain why YOU should care about it
if it can’t justify to you, it can’t motivate to you