On whiteboards… Write down everything a brief summary of ethical naturalism, including criticisms.

Recap: Naturalism

Recap: Naturalism Realist and cognitivist theory Reductionist – Reduces moral properties to natural properties Utilitarianism (specifically Bentham and Mill) is example of naturalism (good = happiness-causing) Criticisms: Equivocation Fallacy of composition Is-ought gap

Naturalism Vs Non-Naturalism Ethical Naturalists Claim that moral properties are just natural properties and can be examined as such. They relate to something we can examine through sense experience and science. In the last 150 years, moral realism has focused on trying to decipher the exactly relation between moral properties and natural properties i.e. properties that we can identify through sense experience and science. This has led to two separate views we will be looking at in turn: Ethical Non-Naturalists Claim that moral properties are a distinct kind of property. Whilst they are definitely part of the world (moral realism) we cannot easily examine them through experience and science.

On whiteboards: Define ‘yellow’

Criticism 4 – The Naturalistic fallacy G. E. Moore 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. There may be certain things that we say are ‘good’ – pleasure or happiness for example, but we just mean they have the property of goodness. They are not the same thing as good. Also, 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?

Ethical non-naturalism - intuitionism Ethical non-naturalism, or (the only version we will consider) intuitionism, is the view that we can’t reduce moral terms to natural ones. Moral judgements are known intuitively. It is a realist, cognitivist position that claims that there are moral truths to be known, and that moral judgements are capable of being true or false. However moral terms do not stand for natural properties, they cannot be discovered through sense experience and the sciences. Instead they are special non-natural properties in their own category.

The Argument for Consequentialist Intuitionism Moore states we have 3 options when faced with the question ‘What is ‘good’?’ Either: ‘Good’ is definable Or: ‘Good’ is indefinable 3. ‘Good’ means nothing at all and ‘there is no such subject as ethics’

The Open Question Argument Let’s look for a moment at 2 terms that are definable, our old friends: Bachelors are unmarried men. Triangles are three-sided shapes. Because we understand these definitions then asking the following makes no sense: Are unmarried men really bachelors? Are three-sided shapes really triangles? Why?

What about goodness? Does it make sense to ask ‘Is happiness really good’? If the naturalists were right what would this question effectively be asking? Moore: But it does make sense to ask this question! – It’s not the same as just asking ‘Is good really good?’ If the UT naturalist were right, and happiness / goodness are one and the same thing, then the first question would be trivial: it would be like asking whether good is good. Since the question is not trivial, and does make sense, the proposed definition is inadequate. It must mean that 'good' and 'maximising happiness‘ are not the same.

The Open Question Argument Any theory which attempts to define ‘good’ (e.g. naturalism) is saying something like: ‘Good’ means X (where X is some fact or set of facts) But it will always make sense to ask: ‘But is X really good?’ It is an open question. This shows that good is cannot be defined. Therefore naturalism (or any theory that attempts to define good) must be false. Contrast this with a bachelor or triangle.

Outline the naturalistic fallacy Outline the naturalistic fallacy. What was Moore attempting to show with this criticism? Summarise Moore’s open question argument. What was Moore attempting to show with this criticism? Do you think he is right?

The open question argument: If good was really a natural property like pleasure, then it would not make sense to ask whether pleasure really is good. This is a closed question. It does make sense to ask whether pleasure really is good (it is in fact an open question). Therefore good is not the same as pleasure. The same is true for any definition we give of good. C: Therefore good is indefinable

The Naturalistic Fallacy - Revisit Moore thinks he has categorically shown that moral terms are indefinable. In this case, any attempts to define them will be fallacious (involve flawed reasoning). Naturalists like Mill not only attempt to define good (which is indefinable), they try to do so in natural terms, which is a fallacy, because ‘good’ is non-natural. Moore: Mill commits the naturalistic fallacy when he attempts to define ‘good’ as ‘desired’, then going on to say that happiness is what we desire “the fallacy in this step is so obvious, that it is quite wonderful how Mill failed to see it.”

Ethical non-naturalism - intuitionism Ethical non-naturalism, or (the only version we will consider) intuitionism, is the view that we can’t reduce moral terms to natural ones. Moral judgements are known intuitively. It is a realist, cognitivist position that claims that there are moral truths to be known, and that moral judgements are capable of being true or false. However moral terms do not stand for natural properties, they cannot be discovered through sense experience and the sciences. Instead they are special non-natural properties in their own category.

What do we mean by Intuitions? Not worked out inductively from evidence (as Mill believes moral judgements are). Worked out just by rationally considering a moral claim i.e. not known empirically or analytically: but using reason alone Incapable of proof. However self-evidently true not ‘6th sense’ – more like maths / logic. Moore seemingly thinks they are examples of synthetic, a priori knowledge. NB: For Moore knowing morality through intuition means morality is self-evident. ‘Self-evident’ does not mean obvious – but that we grasp the evidence of truth directly, without relying on senses, or definitions of words. We still need to develop our ability to do this: our reasoning skills.

So what does Moore think? Some things are intrinsically valuable, and we should strive towards them (ideals) Moore identifies love of friendship and beauty as two of the most important but there are others. These values are known through intuition. We must consider our actions in terms of consequences: whether they promote these goods or damage them.

Summarise Moore’s position on ethical language. What does he mean by intuitions? Do you think this is a stronger view than ethical naturalism?

An Alternative… Deontological non-naturalism Prichard: Moore is right that moral claims are indefinable and self-evident. But he doesn’t think moral claims are about goodness – how good the outcome of an action is. Rather, they are about obligations. We use our intuition to work out whether something we think we should do is a duty or not. It’s intuitionist because we can’t give reasons for it! It’s my duty because it’s my duty – we can only know this from seeing and understanding the situation.

Criticism 1 - Are these the same thing?

Criticism 1 – Open Question Failure Just because it makes sense to question whether two terms mean the same thing, doesn’t mean the two terms can’t refer to the same thing ‘Goodness’ and ‘pleasure’ are different concepts – but they may refer to the same property of the universe. E.g.: It makes sense to ask ‘s water H2O?’, even though they are the same thing. It’s not like asking ‘is water water?’ This is because the two concepts mean something different, even though they refer to the same property. So ‘goodness’ and ‘pleasure’ might refer to the same property, but mean something slightly different in terms of the way we use them (think about MBTIT). In which case it would still make sense to say e.g. ‘Is pleasure good?’, even though they are the same thing! C: So Moore has not shown that being able to form an open question around the definition necessarily means that a given definition is wrong. In turn this means that naturalism could still be correct!

Outline why some people think that the open question argument fails. Use the example of H20 and water to help you illustrate this point.

Criticism 2 – Missed Mill’s Mark To show that something is desirable, we need to show that people do desire it. Everyone desires their own happiness. If something is desirable, then it is good to the individual who desires it. Therefore people’s happiness is desirable, and good. Because each of us desires our own happiness, the sum of all our desires is happiness for all. C: Therefore the ‘good’ for all people can be defined as the general happiness of all. What is Mill actually saying about happiness here? How is he judging something to be ‘good’? Is he really defining good as happiness?

Criticism 2 – Missed Mill’s Mark To show that something is desirable, we need to show that people do desire it. Everyone desires their own happiness. If something is desirable, then it is good to the individual who desires it. Therefore people’s happiness is desirable, and good. Because each of us desires our own happiness, the sum of all our desires is happiness for all. C: Therefore the ‘good’ for all people can be defined as the general happiness of all. Mary Warnock: Mill is not defining what good is, or even what desirable is. He is empirically describing which things are, as a matter of fact, considered good by most people (i.e. fulfilling desires). By this reading, his naturalistic argument merely points out that people do in fact consider happiness good because that is what they desire. But this doesn’t mean Mill is (as Moore believes) claiming that good and happiness/pleasure are the same thing! If people desired pain, then it would be pain that is good. This means that (weirdly) Mill’s argument is compatible with intuitionism!

Why does Warnock think that Moore isn’t reading Mill correctly? What is Mill’s argument showing according to Warnock?

Criticism 3 – ‘Good’ is difficult! The only reason it always seems like an open question whether ‘good’ really is a given property, is that concepts like ‘good’ are complicated. They are unclear in ordinary usage (if they were clear we wouldn’t be having this conversation!). So when the naturalist provides a definition of ‘good’ it’s no surprise we don’t immediately recognise its accuracy. If we truly understood the terms, the question ‘Is happiness really good?’ wouldn’t make sense. It only does because we are unclear about the proper use of the term ‘good’. In contrast, concepts like a bachelor are straightforward and very well defined.

Criticism 4 -Intuitions? If there is no way of proving intuitions, how can we tell which are true? Which intuitions of ‘the good’ are the right and correct ones? E.g. The commander of Auschwitz wrote in his memoirs that he felt what he had done was ‘right’ Mill can argue that this intuition was wrong – by pointing out the suffering caused. But all Moore can say is ‘his intuitions clash with most other people’s intuitions’ Moore’s ‘intuitions’ are just ways of avoiding the question of what good actually is.

What is the problem when it comes to a solid definition of ‘good’? Why might there be an issue with saying that we intuitively know what is right?

Draw a diagram to highlight similarities and differences between ethical naturalism and non-naturalism Naturalism Non-Naturalism What was the strongest criticism of ethical naturalism? Why? What is the strongest criticism of ethical non-naturalism (intuitionism)?

Non- Naturalism Naturalism Similarities