Moral naturalism Michael Lacewing enquiriesalevelphilosophy co uk Michael

  • Slides: 11
Download presentation
Moral naturalism Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy. co. uk © Michael Lacewing

Moral naturalism Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy. co. uk © Michael Lacewing

Metaethics • What is morality, philosophical speaking? – Can ethical claims be objectively true

Metaethics • What is morality, philosophical speaking? – Can ethical claims be objectively true or false? – Are moral properties part of reality? • Cognitivism: moral judgments, e. g. ‘Murder is wrong’ – Express beliefs that the claim is true – Can be true or false – Aim to describe how the world is (c) Michael Lacewing

Three quick arguments • If there were no facts about moral right and wrong,

Three quick arguments • If there were no facts about moral right and wrong, it wouldn’t be possible to make mistakes. • Morality feels like a demand from ‘outside’ us, independent of what we want or feel. • How is moral progress possible, unless some views about morality are better than others? © Michael Lacewing

Moral realism • Moral realism: good and bad are properties of situations and people,

Moral realism • Moral realism: good and bad are properties of situations and people, right and wrong are properties of actions • Moral judgements are true or false depending on whether they ascribe the moral properties something actually has • What is the nature of these properties? • Naturalism: moral properties are natural properties • Non-naturalism: moral properties are a distinct, nonnatural kind of property © Michael Lacewing

The debate over naturalism • Moral claims aren’t analytically true – So if they

The debate over naturalism • Moral claims aren’t analytically true – So if they are true at all, they are synthetic properties • Empiricism: synthetic propositions are known a posteriori – But can we know moral judgments through sense experience and scientific investigation? • If not, then either rationalism is true or moral realism is false – If moral judgments are not objectively true, why teach children morality or punish crimes? © Michael Lacewing

Moral naturalism • Naturalism: moral properties are natural (e. g. psychological) properties • Reductive

Moral naturalism • Naturalism: moral properties are natural (e. g. psychological) properties • Reductive naturalism – ‘Natural’: properties that can be identified through sense experience and science – Reductionism: things in one domain are identical with things in another • Non-reductive naturalism – Morality is an expression of the natural capacities of human beings – Not ‘supernatural’, not ‘non-natural’ – But moral properties can’t be reduced © Michael Lacewing

Utilitarianism as naturalism • ‘The only good is happiness’ – Can be interpreted reductively,

Utilitarianism as naturalism • ‘The only good is happiness’ – Can be interpreted reductively, i. e. goodness and happiness are the same property – Happiness is a psychological (natural) property • Rightness is maximising happiness © Michael Lacewing

Mill’s proof • Moore argues that Mill defines good as ‘desired’ – Mill argues

Mill’s proof • Moore argues that Mill defines good as ‘desired’ – Mill argues that happiness is desired, and then infers that happiness is good – But this only works if what is desired is good • Moore: Mill equivocates on ‘desirable’ – Worthy of being desired (good) – Capable of being desired (what people desire) • Reply: what people desire is evidence for what is desirable (good) – So is Mill a reductive naturalist? • ‘to think of an object as desirable … and to think of it as pleasant are one and the same thing’ – Same meaning because same property © Michael Lacewing

Advantages of reductive naturalism • Metaphysical and epistemological puzzles answered – What is goodness?

Advantages of reductive naturalism • Metaphysical and epistemological puzzles answered – What is goodness? Happiness – How do we know what to do? Discover what brings about happiness • This is true only if reductive naturalism is true – But how can we show that it is true in the first place? © Michael Lacewing

The place of philosophy • How can we prove the identity claim? – Which

The place of philosophy • How can we prove the identity claim? – Which natural property, if any, is identical with goodness isn’t obvious • We can’t use empirical reasoning – Science can show whether, e. g. someone is happy, but can’t show whether this is good • We can’t deduce it: conceptual analysis of ‘happiness’ doesn’t establish that it is good • Philosophical argument will be necessary • Mill’s answer: the proof © Michael Lacewing

Was Aristotle a naturalist? • Aristotle argues that eudaimonia – the good for people

Was Aristotle a naturalist? • Aristotle argues that eudaimonia – the good for people – what we achieve if we perform our ‘characteristic activity’ (‘function’) well – There are facts about human nature – what our characteristic activity is, what traits enable it • Annas: Aristotelian virtue ethics is a form of nonreductive naturalism – It is a natural fact that we are rational animals – But what eudaimonia and practical wisdom are can’t be identified with any set of natural facts – The person with practical wisdom understands the reasons for feeling and acting a certain way © Michael Lacewing