D - Meta-ethical approach - Naturalism

Introduction to naturalism/what does it teach?

• Naturalism teaches that there is nothing outside of our senses that can be studied to help us understand ethical language.

• Therefore, there is no God to guide humanity on the meaning of ethical language terms like ‘good, bad’ etc.

• Naturalism finds the meaning of ethical words in concrete empirical evidence, we should be able to find sensory evidence for the meaning of ethical language in the world around us.

What is the meta-ethical approach to Naturalism?

• Ethical naturalists believe that ethical language terms, like ‘good’ and ‘bad’, are ethical facts.

• e.g. when I state ‘stealing is bad’, what I mean is that ‘stealing is bad’ because I can prove it with empirical evidence.

• Therefore, according to an ethical naturalist an ethical statement is expressing factual knowledge, in the same way as a scientific fact does.

1. Scientific fact - ‘Water is made up of two-parts hydrogen and one part oxygen’

2. Ethical fact - ‘Hitler was a bad person’

• According to naturalism both of the above statements are facts - known as cognitive statements - because both can be supported with empirical evidence.

How does naturalism argue we can know whether something is good or bad - and what does this mean for moral laws?

What are objective moral laws not derived from?

• Objective moral laws exist independently of human beings

• Naturalism argues we can know whether something is good or bad, right or wrong, by direct reference to the physical world around us (realism/empirical evidence) - hence objective moral laws/facts exist.

• Objective moral laws are not derived from any form of a priori knowledge, intuition, or metaphysical source - but derived from the natural world.

What is the world considered, and what does this mean it can be used for?

• Objective moral laws exist independently of human beings

• The world is objective and real (realism) and so can be used to establish knowledge and truth.

• The world is not part of our imagination and any moral laws we make are also real because they relate directly to objective facts of existence.

Where is all of our knowledge derived from, and how are we born?

• Objective moral laws exist independently of human beings

• All knowledge (ethical and non-ethical) is derived from our senses (see, hear, feel, etc).

• We are born with ‘a clean slate’ (absence of preconceptions of ethics) and everything we learn has its origins in the world of sense around us.

• e.g. putting your finger in a socket - you find out it electrocutes you.

How are moral terms definable by using non-ethical natural terms?

• Moral terms can be understood by analysing the natural world

• Moral terms (right, wrong) are definable by using non-ethical natural terms like happiness, kindness, duty or cruelty, bad, pain. 

• E.g. we can experience happiness (from realism) and then conclude happiness is seen as good and actions that produce the most amount of happiness are good therefore we can make ethical statements like murder is wrong (because it does not bring happiness).

How is ethical language cognitive, and what does this mean can happen?

• Ethical statements are cognitivist and can be verified or falsified

• Naturalism agrees ethical language/statements are cognitive which means moral claims/terms/language can be understood (from realism and empirical evidence) and therefore investigated for truth or falsity. 

• It is insufficient to base morality on opinions because there is a risk that morality will become arbitrary and unreliable.  

• Moral terms must be treated in the same way as other natural phenomena's e.g. science through experimentations, observations etc can verify or falsify scientific facts.  

• This means moral terms are universal since everyone can verify these through their experience of the natural world.

What does it mean if ethical statements can be verified?

• Verified statements are objective truths and universal

• All of this means if a moral statement, such as ‘helping someone is good’, can be verified then it is objectively true and applies to everyone in all situations.  

• Therefore, Naturalism allows for the creation of absolute moral laws as the world around us is objective and real and we can then move from ‘is’ statements to ‘ought’ statements.  

…… is good therefore I ought to ………. 

What did F.H Bradley believe?

• F.H Bradley - ethical sentences express propositions

• Bradley believed that through realising one’s station and its duties within the whole moral organism (world) we realise who we are and what behaving ethically is.  

What did Bradley say about self-realisation, ethical propositions and society?

• F.H Bradley - ethical sentences express propositions

• For Bradley ethics was concerned with understanding ourselves as not separate from the world around us (naturalism).  

• The aim of ethics is self-realisation. An individual is part of a societal whole, identifying one’s role in society and the duties that are associated with that role.

• Self-realisation is a combination of happiness and duty when all three are combined we make ethical propositions.  

• Ethical statements express propositions about each person’s integral place in society as inseparable from the communities in which they live.  

• A person’s station (niche/role) in society, and the duties their station requires of them (what is expected from them), are observable in society, just like any other propositions about the world (e.g. the grass is green).

What is a quote from Bradley about stations?

• ‘‘In my station my particular duties are prescribed to me, and I have them whether I wish to or not.’’

How is self-realisation objective?

How do we be moral?

How can we verify or falsify moral acts

• F.H Bradley - objective features of the world make propositions true or false

• Self-realisation is objective because we are moulded by the society we live in and cannot be separated from it.

• To see oneself as separate from society (e.g. your job, family, education) is a delusion.

• If a person turns against the society they turn against themselves. 

• Therefore, to be moral is to behave in accordance with society and our duties within society.

• Different societies have different duties depending on how they are set up so morality is always relative to the society.  

• We can verify or falsify moral facts by using empirical evidence from society.  

• ‘Cruelty is wrong’ is a true proposition because these experiences are grounded in objective features of the world around us. 

What is a key quote from Bradley about morality?

• ‘‘Morality is relative but nonetheless real’’

F.H Bradley - meta ethical statements can be seen in scientific terms

• Bradley turned to scientific principles to argue morality is linked to our station (niche/role) and duties. 

• Through the process of evolution humanity has moved from primitive, animalistic forms to become more sophisticated.

• In the same way morality has gradually changed and advanced as humanity evolved.  

• Morality has not come about by chance therefore is not absolute but is a product of the society that we are part of.  

What is a key quote from Bradley about morality being around us?

‘‘Morality exists all round us and faces us’’

What are is a strength of naturalism in terms of universal?

• Naturalism claims ethical statements are objective rather than subjective.

• Therefore, morality is universal - this gives morality importance rather than just being a matter of personal opinion.

What is a strength of naturalism in terms of scientific?

• Naturalism allows ethical claims to be tested in a scientific/non-ethical way.

• This gives morality a strong foundation and again gives it importance.

What is a strength of naturalism in terms of absolutist?

• Naturalism gives morality a set of absolute universal statements e.g. murder is bad, rape is wrong etc.

• This matches with some of the principles of normative ethics like Natural Law and Rule utilitarianism.

What is David Hume’s challenge to Naturalism in terms of the is-ought problem?

• Hume was critical of the naturalistic idea that ethical statements could be verified using empirical evidence.

• This is because, he believed, ethical statements are not based on empirical evidence, they are instead based on a personal value judgement.   

• E.g if I were to say that ‘Hitler was bad’ and say this is a fact because it can be verified using empirical evidence.

• However, this is wrong because I am just making a personal value judgement on the empirical evidence e.g. ‘from this empirical evidence I believe that Hitler was bad’ 

• For Hume this ‘personal value judgement’ disqualifies ethical statements/language from facts.  They are just personal value judgements. 

• An ‘ought’ cannot be derived from an ‘is’. 

• An ‘is’ is a descriptive factual statement.  

• An ‘ought’ is a prescriptive statement/ value judgement, it is prescribing how we should behave morally  

• Is and ought are two completely separate things. 

What is G.E Moore’s challenge to Naturalism in terms of The Naturalistic Fallacy?

• Moore argued that ethical language terms like ‘good’, ‘bad’ etc are indefinable because they are already in their simplest form. 

• This is because ethical language terms are not complex i.e. they cannot be reduced down to a set of basic definitions. (complex word would be horse, we can define a horse by saying …..)  

• For example, the colour yellow. 

• Yellow is indefinable because it is impossible to describe to someone what yellow is, who is blind.

• This is because the colour yellow is not complex, therefore it cannot be studied empirically to break it down further to create a definition i.e. yellow is just yellow. 

• Moore then argues the same applies to ethical language terms like ‘good’ and ‘bad’.

• E.g. the ethical term ‘good’ cannot be empirically studied to break it down further to create a definition.   

• Therefore, ‘good’ is just ‘good’ in the same way that ‘yellow is just yellow’. 

• Therefore, Moore argues that ethical terms, like good, are also indefinable. 

• Moore then adds that ethical language terms cannot possibly studied empirically, if we cannot define ethical language terms e.g. ‘Hitler is bad’ cannot be verified with empirical evidence, because the term ‘bad’ cannot be defined.   

• Moore claims the ethical naturalists belief that ethical language can be studied empirically is the naturalistic fallacy i.e a flawed or false notion. 

What is G.E Moore’s challenge in terms of the open question argument?

• This challenge by Moore follows on from the previous challenge that words like ‘good’ ‘bad’ ‘right’ ‘wrong’ cannot defined, we can only give examples for them hence it is an open question argument (has too many meanings and the answer is not simple) not a closed question (has one answer). 

• E.g. good can be pleasure, respect, happiness, but it still cannot be defined.  

• Moore also argued that any attempt to find an empirical definition of ethical language terms would limit the meaning of it.  

• For example, if I define ‘bad’ as meaning ‘cruel’.

• However, all I have done is limit the meaning of ‘bad’ to mean cruel.

• But bad means more than just cruel e.g. bad can mean a ‘cheat’ ‘spoilt’ etc. 

• Ethical language terms like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are examples of open questions i.e. they cannot be defined in a simple straight-forward way. 

• Moore argues that ethical naturalists assume ethical language terms are not open questions i.e. they can be defined in a straight-forward way from empirical observation. 

• However, they are not. 

• Therefore, again how can ethical language terms be studied empirically if we cannot even define ethical language terms.