To what extent is Naturalism superior to Intuitionism and Emotivism?

Introduction

· A metaethical theory- do not tell us what to do, but attempt to define and understand terms such as 'good'- foundation of other ethical theories.

· All the theories therefore provide the foundation for other ethical theories- e.g. anarchism, finnis nl, utilitarianism.

· Intuitionism is the belief that objective moral thoughts exist independently of human beings, and moral truths can be discovered by using our minds in an intuitive way.

· Naturalism is an approach to philosophical problems that says that they can be resolved using methods of empirical sciences, without the need for a priori reasoning- understood as a natural science.

· Emotivists don't believe in objective morality, and believe that ethical statements are factually meaningless as merely expressions of emotion.

Paragraph (1)- Naturalism is objective

· Naturalism- Provides us with the view that morality is objective- has a clear foundation in the physical world (science) - may be able to universalise moral status. We can work out what is right and wrong- helps social order.

· Rachels: "Ethical naturalism is the idea that ethics can be understood in the terms of natural science".

· Can put this into practice- Utilitarianism- Hedonic calculus.

Counter

· Emotivists: Shouldn't make assumptions about objective morality- presents a view of morality based on empirical evidence available to us.

· Ayer- Ethical statements aren't verifiable or analytic- so are scientifically and factually meaningless.

· Morality is a mere pseudo- concept

· is-ought problem: Hume

- He argued- if we take a naturalistic approach to morality, we are reducing ethical propositions to mere observations.

- What 'is' happening, is not the same as what 'ought' to happen.

Evaluation

· This overlooks how naturalism may be supported by Darwin's theory of evolution- fits with anthropological literature- Finnis

· Evolutionary ethics suggests that as humans have evolved, so has understanding of ethics, memes- Dawkins.

Paragraph (2)- Moral disagreements

· Intuitionism provides a better account of moral disagreements between individuals.

· Overcomes issue of a lack of scientific justification my appealing to our intuitive moral sense, idea of morality being self-evident.

· Most humans would attest to having a sense of morality but wouldn't necessarily be able to justify it.

· Stratton- Luke "intuitively the intuitionists seem right."

· Informed Finnis' 7 basic goods, self-evident.

· Moore- Even though objective moral laws can't be induced from empirical natural world- they still 'exist ' in how concepts like numbers 'exist.

· Ethics, like maths, were a priori concepts- existed independently of human beings.

Paragraph (2)- Counter

· No reason to suggest that morality is an intuitive truth- naturalists- empiricists where is the proof? may believe that this 'intuitive truth' something that has been conditioned by society.

· Mackie's Argument from Relativity- there is an enormous amount of variation in moral views

· G.J. Warnock- finds it astonishing that people like Moore and Ross believe that there are moral facts in the world- but can't explain how related they are.

Paragraph (2)- Evaluation

· Naturalism also doesn't quite explain the variation, only emotivism does- no objective morality.

· That doesn't necessarily mean these theories are false- Prichard- not equal distribution. Naturalism- need to understand sense of self and duty- dependent on other things

Paragraph (3)- Assumptions

· Emotivism is more accurate description of morality- Occam's razor principle

· The more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.

· People don't disagree about morality due to misinterpretation of moral facts (as naturalism and intuitionism would suggest), but rather because no actual moral facts of the universe.- similar to R.M.Hare- ethical statements don't express propositions, but function similarly to imperatives, universalizable.

· Ayer "Moral utterances simply express the attitude of the speaker"

Paragraph (3)- Counter

· F.H. Bradley also saw how many ethical theories too abstract he was naturalist- and saw morality as intrinsically related to society and world

· Although Bradley says "there cannot be a moral philosophy which will tell us what in particular we are to do and also that is not the business of philosophy to do so."

· In defining good objectively according to nature can have some guidance on living orderly in society

· Link to Primary precepts of Natural Law.

· One who works for community is "good"- link to primal horde.

· Emotivism instead leads to complete anarchy- nothing good or bad, no authority.

· Murder can't even be seen as bad.

Evaluation

· Emotivists would agree that murder can't be seen as 'bad'- not a criticism of emotivism, just how it is- can't just actualise factual moral principles because you want it.

· But people have an intuitive sense that that is wrong, although people ignored it e.g. Nazis' those with developed reasoning, looking objectively can see that examples of genocide, examples of murder are intrinsically wrong.

· If not then no one has any say in society, backwards.

Conclusions

Overall, it is evident that naturalism succeeds in having an objective morality that is rooted in empirical, scientific bases. However, the 'is ought' gap, means it may not be able to act as a normative ethic, but that does not mean that there is no objective morality. According to Ross ethical statements "cannot be proved, but ... just as certainly need no proof"- self-evident throughout history. Although 'good' and 'bad' may not have a universal definitive, analytic definition as emotivists so wish as Moore argues, it is intuitive, a priori concept that is well known, like numbers or colours.,