Naturalism Assess evaluate the problems of Naturalism On
Naturalism Assess /evaluate the problems of Naturalism
On whiteboards: Define ‘yellow’
Criticising Naturalism 1 - The naturalistic fallacy G. E. Moore 1853 – 1958) [“If I am asked what is ‘good’? My answer is that good is good and that is the end of the matter”] • Goodness is a simple and un-analysable property. • It cannot be defined in terms of anything else. • ‘Goodness’ is similar to ‘yellow’. I. e. can’t be defined in terms of something else, you see it for yourself to understand what it is. • However, unlike ‘yellow’, which is a natural fact, ‘goodness’ is a non-natural fact, although it is part of reality. • Can you think of any other terms that can’t be reduced? (i. e. they can’t be defined in terms of anything more simple? )
Criticising Naturalism 2 - The problem of the Open. Question The view that statements are valid if they are not susceptible to the open question. Naturalists claim that good can be explained in terms of other things eg. The utilitarian claims that ‘good’ = ‘pleasure-causing’. But Moore points out that if ‘good’ really meant ‘pleasure-causing’, then the utilitarian would just be saying ‘good’ = ‘good’. If this were the case, then we couldn’t ask the question “Is it good to give people pleasure? ”. This question would make no sense. But this question does seem to make sense. Because it is an open question whether or not pleasure is the same as goodness, goodness cannot simply be equated with pleasure.
The problem of the open question: summary 1. If good was really e. g. pleasure, then it would not make sense to ask whether pleasure really was good. 2. It does make sense to ask whether pleasure really is good 3. Therefore good is not pleasure. 4. The same is true for any definition we give of good Therefore good is indefinable
Criticising Naturalism 3 - The Is-Ought Gap Hume’s law: we can’t derive an evaluative conclusion (ought) from descriptive premises (is). This is because ethics is separate from matters of fact. Is-Ought Gap Many opponents of the naturalist position argue that we cannot make the leap between a FACT (is) and a MORAL JUDGEMENT (ought). Naturalists commit the Naturalistic Fallacy
We can argue from facts to facts: Today is Wednesday Therefore I have RS first lesson Or we can argue from oughts to oughts: We should not cause pain to other people. Therefore you shouldn’t punch your friend. But we cannot move from an IS to an OUGHT – there is a logical gap between them. Many ethical theories violate Hume’s law. Can you think of any examples?
E. g. P: C: Humans in general eat meat. Therefore humans ought to eat meat. P: C: It is bedtime. Therefore you ought to brush your teeth. P: C: Women have the biological capacity to have children. Therefore women ought to have children. P: C: Jack is dead. therefore you ought not kill.
Can I explain? 1. Naturistic fallacy 2. Open question argument 3. Is-Ought gap
- Slides: 10