Ethical Naturalism and the Naturalistic Fallacy
Ethical naturalism is the idea that our moral laws can be worked out via observation of the natural world. By observing the natural world we can figure out what terms such as 'good', 'bad', 'right' and 'wrong' mean.
Ethical naturalists believe that objective moral laws do exist and thus they are cognitive approach to Metaethics. There is a reality wherein moral laws exist and we can become aware of them via the observation of the natural world.
In summary: When you observe something is wrong, it's a moral fact of the universe.
Ethical naturalists believe that objective moral laws do exist and thus they are cognitive approach to Metaethics. There is a reality wherein moral laws exist and we can become aware of them via the observation of the natural world.
In summary: When you observe something is wrong, it's a moral fact of the universe.
The Naturalistic Fallacy
GE Moore uses Hume's 'is', 'ought' distinction to argue against ethical naturalism.
Hume's distinction is as follows:
"You cannot go from an is to an ought" ---> this means that you cannot go from a way the world is and then construct a statement claiming that this is the way the world ought to be.
Hume says such a jump is illogical and meaningless. Often the there are no reasons given as to why the oughts follows the is (no reasons given to suggest why the fact that something has happened means that it should always happen). And secondly there is no empirical proof that that is the way things ought to be.
Take this example:
An ethical naturalist would see the observation of Sam's actions (e.g the harm it caused to his employers), as nature revealing a moral law - (do not to steal). However, premise 3 and 4 are 'ought' statements...how are they logically supporting premises 1 & 2?
It is incredibly difficult to go from a descriptive statement about the way something is and then derive a normative conclusion.
example source:
http://www.philosophy-index.com/hume/guillotine/
Hume's distinction is as follows:
"You cannot go from an is to an ought" ---> this means that you cannot go from a way the world is and then construct a statement claiming that this is the way the world ought to be.
Hume says such a jump is illogical and meaningless. Often the there are no reasons given as to why the oughts follows the is (no reasons given to suggest why the fact that something has happened means that it should always happen). And secondly there is no empirical proof that that is the way things ought to be.
Take this example:
- Sam is stealing money from work.
- Losing money by theft causes harm to Sam's employers.
- (One ought to not cause harm to his employers.)
- Therefore, Sam ought to stop stealing money from work.
An ethical naturalist would see the observation of Sam's actions (e.g the harm it caused to his employers), as nature revealing a moral law - (do not to steal). However, premise 3 and 4 are 'ought' statements...how are they logically supporting premises 1 & 2?
It is incredibly difficult to go from a descriptive statement about the way something is and then derive a normative conclusion.
example source:
http://www.philosophy-index.com/hume/guillotine/