Naturalism

Cards (51)

  • what is naturalism?
    the idea that moral values can be correctly discovered by observation of the natural world
  • what is "right" and "wrong" can be established by...?
    looking at the world around us (empirical observation)
  • what kind of theory is naturalism?
    a moral realist theory (moral facts/ truths actually exist)
  • in essence, what is naturalism grounded in?
    the facts of nature, or in the facts of human nature
  • what else is naturalism?
    cognitivist
  • how is naturalism cognitivist?
    statements about morality are either objectively true or false
  • what do naturalist theories often talk of?

    intrinsic good
  • what does intrinsic good mean?
    the value that something has "in itself" and holding that this good is self-evident
  • what is an example of theological naturalism?
    Aquinas' NML
  • how is Aquinas' NML an example of theological naturalism?
    it is based on the idea that the world has a God-given order
  • so moral values can be worked out by...?
    understanding our God-given purpose and observing the natural order
  • meta-ethically, what will an ethical naturalist argue is vitally important?
    to hold that there are ethical facts about the world
  • why would an ethical naturalist argue it is vitally important to hold that there are ethical facts about the world?
    because otherwise we have no real justification for our actions
  • how can we discover goodness/ morality/ moral truths?
    by observing the natural world around us
  • what did F.H Bradley argue?
    that it is possible to understand our moral duties by observing our position or station in life
  • finish F.H Bradley's quote, "what he has to do depends on what his place is, what his function is...?
    and that all comes from his station in the organism"
  • what does F.H Bradley mean in this quote?
    that through observation, we can understand moral values/ absolutes
  • (s) what is one obvious strength of ethical naturalism?
    that ethical propositions are true because they're factual
  • (s) what do they reduce to?
    non-ethical properties about the world, such as happiness, love, well-being etc
  • (s) what are these facts grounded in?
    human nature
  • (s) what does naturalism make morality/ right and wrong?
    objective, rather than subjective
  • (s) they exist in the world outside ourselves, if there is an objective moral reality then...?
    we can know if we are doing right or wrong
  • (s) as well, if morality is objective...?
    then it's universal
  • (s) what does this give morality?
    importance, rather than just being a matter of personal opinion
  • (s) what can ethical propositions give us?
    solid guidelines and rules to follow (a set of absolutes)
  • (s) what does naturalism fit with?
    widely used normative ethical theories (e.g. NML)
  • (s) therefore...?
    it is a popular approach to understanding morality, that has real-world relevance
  • (w) the claim that ethical propositions are factual doesn't impress who?
    ethical non-cognitivists (who argue that moral propositions aren't factual)
  • (w) briefly, we can see the non-cognitivist approach from who?
    A.J Ayer
  • (w) what is Ayer's ethical non-cognitivism approach called?
    emotivism
  • (w) for Ayer, what do moral statements reduce to?
    statements of approval or disapproval
  • (w) for emotivists and others, what is morality?
    subjective, not objective
  • (w) who identifies the naturalistic fallacy as the key error that naturalism makes?
    G.E Moore
  • (w) what does Moore say is a mistake?
    to try and define the concept "good" in terms of some natural property such as "pleasant" or "desirable"
  • (w) just because something is natural...?
    we shouldn't assume that it is good
  • (w) what did Moore also argue?
    that it isnt possible to derive an "ought" from an "is"
  • (w) we cannot go from pleasure IS good to...?
    we ought to seek pleasure
  • (w) what is another way of saying this?
    we cannot derive moral values from facts
  • (w) for example...?
    she IS old and lonely (fact) and you OUGHT to help her (moral value)
  • (w) why is deriving you ought to help her from she is old and lonely logically invalid?
    something is missing in the reasoning between them