1. Theme 1 – D – Ethical Naturalism
By the end of today’s lesson you will have:
Understood the difference between ethical theories and meta-ethics
Learnt what ethical naturalism is
Familiarised yourself with the key terminology for this course

2. Virtue Theory
Challenges
Normative agent focussed ethic based on self-interest as opposed to altruism; ethical theory that matches the moral agent’s psychological state (psychological egoism); concentration on long term self-interests rather than short term interests; Max Stirner, self-interest is the root cause of every human action even if it appears altruistic; rejection of egoism for material gain; union of egoists
Destruction of a community ethos; social injustices could occur as individuals put their own interest first; a form of bigotory (why is one moral agent more important than any other?)
The extent to which ethical egoism inevitably leads to moral evil
The extent to which all moral actions are motivated by self-interest

3. Key Words COGNITIVE NON-COGNITIVE
ETHICAL STATEMENTS CAN BE TRUE OR FALSE
ETHICAL STATEMENTS CAN NOT BE PROVEN TRUE OR FALSE

4. Key Words REALIST ANTI-REALIST
ETHICAL STATEMENTS ARE OBJECTIVE AND TRUE OR FALSE
ETHICAL STATEMENTS ARE NOT OBJECTIVE AND TRUE OR FALSE

5. Key Words OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE TRUE FOR EVERYONE. FACTUAL
BASED ON OPINIONS RATHER THAN FACT. TRUE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL.

6. Key Words EMPIRICAL NON-EMPIRICAL CAN BE PROVED USING THE SENSES.
CAN NOT BE PROVED USING THE SENSES.

7. Objective Moral Laws exist independently of human beings
Naturalism = Ethical naturalism (also called moral naturalism or naturalistic cognitivistic definism) is the meta-ethical view which claims that ethical sentences express propositions. Some such propositions are true. Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of human opinion.

8. Objective Moral Laws exist independently of human beings
Ethical Naturalism (or Naturalistic Ethics) is the meta-ethical doctrine that there are objective moral properties of which we have empirical knowledge, but that these properties are reducible to entirely  natural properties, such as needs, wants or pleasures (as opposed to relating the ethical terms in some way to the will of God, for example).
What is right or wrong can be discovered through looking at natural wants and needs in the world
Ethical Naturalism is a type of Moral Realism and assumes Cognitivism (the view that ethical sentences express propositions and can therefore be true or false). It holds that the meanings of these ethical sentences can be expressed as natural properties without the use of ethical terms (e.g. "good", "right", etc).
Ethical statements have to be true or false because they relate to real life needs in the world such as natural needs
It suggests that inquiry into the natural world can increase our moral knowledge in just the same way it increases our scientific knowledge, and that any "ethical value" is confirmable through the methods of science. Moral facts are therefore effectively facts of nature.
Ethics should be regarded in the same sense of science whereby what is right or wrong is proven as a fact , not just a subjective statement

9. Objective Moral Laws exist independently of human beings
This means that if I was to make an ethical statement such as ‘murder is wrong’ this would be objectively true. It would be a cognitive, realist and objective statement.
Regardless of my subjective existence, the statement would still be true.
TASK: In groups, read an extract on page 29 of your workbook and write what you think ethical naturalism is in your own words on your whiteboard

10. Moral goods can be understood by analysing the natural world
TASK: What sort of observations about the natural world can you make that could lead to ethical suggestions?
Think of pain, suffering, relationships, thirst, hunger….
It is wrong to murder
It is wrong to torture someone
It is okay to steal if you are dying of hunger
These show us that for an ethical naturalist, what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ can be proven in the realms of the natural world, without the need for a higher being

11. Moral goods can be understood by analysing the natural world
We analyse the modern world to discover empirical truths which can be objectively proven as ‘good’ or ‘bad.
If I hit someone, this leads to physical pain, which feels bad and unpleasant. This shows me that hitting someone is wrong.

12. Ethical statements are cognitive and can be verified and falsified

13. Key Words VERIFIED FALSIFIED
SOMETHING IS TRUE BECAUSE IT CAN BE PROVEN TRUE EMPIRICALLY
SOMETHING IS TRUE BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE TOOLS TO PROVE AGAINST IT

14. Ethical statements are cognitive and can be verified and falsified
The chair is blue
The chair is red
It is raining outside
All birds can fly
Task: Try and think of 3 statements which can be verified
Try and think of 3 statements which can be falsified

15. Ethical statements are cognitive and can be verified and falsified
Because ethical naturalism holds that ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is objective as proven in the natural world, they believe that their statements are cognitive
It holds that you can verify your statements e.g ‘torture is wrong’ can be verified when we see someone screaming in pain when they are being tortured

16. F.H Bradley’s Naturalism
Advocates Ethical Naturalism - the belief that a statement could only be factual and have meaning if it can be verified empirically like literal statements/ propositions.
1. Ethical sentences express propositions.
2. Some such propositions are true.
3. Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of human opinion.
Suggests that there is a link between science and morality.
Meta-ethical statements can be defined in scientific terms. This is Naturalism (the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes)

17. Ethical Naturalism Define cognitive Define realist Define objective
Define empirical
Explain ethical naturalism in one sentence
What is an example of something which can be ethically proved through natural observation?
Why does ethical naturalism try and be like science?
Which scholar was an advocate of ethical naturalism?

18. Write Up
‘Explain ethical naturalism’
Essay snake

19. RS Assessment AO1) ‘Explain Ethical Naturalism’ – 20 marks – 26mins
P.E.E.L
AO2) ‘The naturalistic fallacy is right to suggest that ethical language cannot be objective’. Assess this view – 30 marks – 36mins
P.E.S.E.L

20. Challenges Against Ethical Naturalism
By the end of today’s lesson you will have:
Re-capped your knowledge of ethical naturalism
Considered the challenges against it from Hume and Moore
Learnt what the ‘open ended question’ criticism is

21. Spec Check Ethical Naturalism Challenges
Objective moral laws exist independently of human beings; moral terms can be understood by analysing the natural world; ethical statements are cognitivist and can be verified or falsified; verified moral statements are objective truths and universal; FH Bradley – ethical statements express propositions; objective features of the world make propositions true or false; meta-ethical statements can be seen in scientific terms
Hume’s law (the is-ought problem); Moore’s naturalistic fallacy (moral language is indefinable); the Open Question Argument (moral facts cannot be reduced top natural properties)
* Whether ethical and non-ethical statements are the same
* The extent to which ethical statements can be objective

22. Homework – Due Thu 10th November
For those who weren’t in last Wednesday, you must complete your assessments on T2 day in timed conditions in the Ethics office.
For those who have missed lesson to illness, you must attend support this Thursday. Zoe will contact parents if you miss this: Chloe, Molly, Emily
Revise key words for a brief test on Thu – I will take these marks in. You will get your assessments back too.
Homework due in for next Wednesday 16th ADVANCE WARNING is to complete revision notes on what we have learnt so far in this topic. This can be on the revision cards or in the format of an idiots guide. I expect these to be detailed and have key words / relevant scholars / challenges

23. Homework – Due Wed 16th November
Divine Command Theory (D.C.T)
Challenges against D.C.T
Virtue Theory
Challenges against Virtue Theory
Ethical Egoism
Challenges against Ethical Egoism
Naturalism
Challenges against Naturalism
Intuitionism
Challenges against Intuitionism
Emotivism
Challenges against Emotivism

24. Starter – Re:Cap
Using the words below, complete page 31 in your work booklets
Empirical
Cognitive
Verified
Objective
Unnecessary violence
Realist
Physical world
Proof
Good/Bad

25. Challenges Against
TASK: Why do you think that people are going to challenge ethical naturalism?
Why do some people think it is impossible to prove whether an ethical statement is right or wrong?
What is naïve or illogical about it?
Try and write as many criticisms as you can on your whiteboard

26. HUME’S FORK ATHEIST 18th Century PHILOSOPHER EMPIRICIST BRITISH
CRITICAL OF ETHICAL TALK

27. David Hume and the is-ought gap
Known as ‘Hume’s law’ the is-ought gap is the main problem against ethical naturalism
Hume’s believed that there were only three ways of proving something true or false:
Analytic statements – true by definition
Synthetic Statements – true by experience
Mathematical statements – true by maths
TASK: How does ethical naturalism try and fit under one of these categories?

28. David Hume and the is-ought gap
Ethical language TRIES and puts itself as empirical and synthetic truth because it uses PRACTICAL and EMPIRICAL things in the world to prove what is right and wrong
For instance, an ethical naturalist would say ‘I know that unnecessary violence is wrong because it causes physical pain and people physically cry so it must be wrong’
IS = when we say something ‘is’ something, we mean the actual state of someone i.e. she is crying – means that someone is actually empirically crying
OUGHT = an ethical duty which tell sus what is right and wrong, for instance when we say ‘someone ought to be good’ we mean that someone has an abstract sense of duty to be good

29. TASK 5mins Individually read pages 61-64 of your reading logs
Sum up the argument on your whiteboards individually
EVERYONE MUST WRITE AT LEAST SOMETHING
Share your answers with the person next to you
10mins
As a group, read pages 32 and 33 of your workbook and make notes on your A3 sheet

31. Is-Ought Gap
The ought is gap suggests that ethical and moral language CAN NOT be seen as true as an empirical statement such as ‘the grass is green’
We CAN NOT prove anything is right or wrong with regards to ethics
Hume says that we are creating a GAP in our argument. We jump from saying ‘to hit someone will leave them crying and bloody’ to saying ‘it is wrong to hit someone’
He says we make this jump without any evidence

32. Is-Ought Gap
I see blood and tears
That was wrong
Hitting someone

33. Moore’s Naturalistic Fallacy
TASK: Read page 36 of your booklets individually
What do you think the naturalistic fallacy is?

34. Moore’s Naturalistic Fallacy
Moore stated that you cannot move from facts to values
He said that moral truths CANNOT be defined by looking at the natural world
Similarly to Hume, he stated that you cannot draw an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’
Fact = Oranges have vitamin C
Value = It is good to eat oranges

35. Moore’s Naturalistic Fallacy
We can’t say that ‘pain is bad’ or ‘happiness is good’ because pain will never fully sum up ‘bad’ and happiness will never sum up ‘good’. Bits of pain might be bad, bits of happiness might be good – but it doesn’t do it justice to say ‘pain is what it means to be bad’ or ‘happiness is what it means to be good’
Moore compared trying to define ‘good’ as pointless as trying to define ‘yellow’.
There are lots of ways in which we can try to define good, just as there are lots of ways of trying to define yellow. But ultimately there is no definite answer – it simply rests with our intuition

36. Open Question Argument
Question: Do you think it is always good to make people happy?
For Moore, the question ‘Is it good to make people happy?’ can logically be answered yes or no. Therefore it is an open question. There is not only one answer. Sometimes YES it is good to make people happy, other times NO it isn’t good to make people happy.
If a question can be answered ‘maybe yes, maybe no’, then Moore doesn’t think it can have objective meaning.
Therefore, happiness and goodness aren’t the same thing.
Therefore it is fallacious to define good and bad in terms of natural properties.

37. Open Question Argument
What other examples of ‘natural properties’ could you use to make a question answered ‘maybe, maybe not’
Think of the examples we used for ethical naturalism: pain, tears, thirst, hunger
1. Is it bad to make people cry?
2. Is it bad to draw blood from someone?
3. Is it good to see someone laugh?

38. Questions
1. Give an example of how ethical naturalists would try and define good
2. What is meant by an ‘is’?
3. What is meant by an ‘ought’?
4. Why does Hume think we can’t jump from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’?
5. Give an example of an open ended ethical question
6. Why does Moore think open ended ethical questions can disprove ethical naturalism?
7. What does Moore say is as hard to define as ‘good’?
8. What does it mean to say that something is indefinable?