Ethical Naturalism and the Naturalistic Fallacy Learning Objectives:- To recap understand of the basic cognitive and non-cognitive theories To explore the ethical naturalist position and GE Moore’s criticism of it To understand the naturalistic fallacy

What is this the definition of… 1 - _____________ - The study of knowledge or origin of knowledge 2 - _____________ - Verifying things using sense data 3 - __________ - Good and bad are concepts that exist objectively 4 - __________ - What is true adheres to and corresponds to something 5 - __________ - Position that holds that ethical terminology has no meaning beyond opinion

Ethical Naturalism Hume – Empiricism, statements must be verifiable to have meaning eg David Cameron is the PM of UK. Ethical Naturalism – Ethics and morality/good and bad can be empirically verified

Think About This Quick question activity – If someone observes a person saving an orphan from a burning building, how do they know that action to be good? Do you think this can be verified empirically?

Pairs Activity Complete the following statements (Hint – you might want to use ‘ought’) ‘God commands us not to murder through the Bible, therefore…’ ‘Lying cannot be universalised as a categorical imperative therefore…’ ‘Agape is selfless Christian love, therefore…’

“Cannot derive an Ought from an Is.” Even if the ‘is’ can be verified, one cannot move to an ought as normative ethics tries to do. It is an illogical and meaningless jump. Just because agape is selfless love, it does not mean that a loving intention ought to be moral. ‘Cannot derive an ought from an is.’ – Use previous examples. Ought cannot be empirically verified.

Summary Moore therefore thought ethical naturalism was bogus because it tries to found ethics on a fallacy.

Lightbulb Moment Moore is saying that the ought cannot be verified. ‘Any statement that cannot be empirically verified is meaningless.’ What is wrong with this statement???