Meta ethics: Ethical naturalism

Created by

Rasi

Cards (15)

Naturalism 
View that moral values described in terms of natural properties e.g love + happiness
Naturalism 
Utilitarianism
Right 
Causes pleasure
Wrong 
Causes pain
Naturalism 
Moral values exist and are describable so we can understand them
Natural ethical theories are realist
Grounded in the facts of nature/ human nature
Deducing right and wrong by looking at world and people's behaviour
Naturalism 
Not grounded in commands of transcendent God (DCT)
Ethical naturalism 
Deducing right and wrong by looking at world and people's behaviour
Different people will identify the good by looking at different facts
Utilitarian 
Identify 'good' based on facts about pleasure and pain. Their Normative theory is to bring greatest happiness for greatest number
Virtue ethicist 
Identify 'good' based on facts about eudaimonia
Naturalist theories 
Look at 'intrinsic good' (value in itself), this good is self-evident
Natural ethicists 
Follow rule of "Do the most loving thing in the situation/ Do that which gives the greatest happiness for the greatest number"
Meta-ethical naturalist 
Argues importance of knowing ethical facts about world because we need real justification for our actions. Naturalist perspective is crucial for survival and order on Earth
Strengths of ethical naturalism
Ethical propositions give us guidelines and rules
Right and wrong are objective - an objective moral reality that people can know if actions are right/wrong. Objective means we can be judged by how we follow rules and can punish offenders
Weaknesses of ethical naturalism
Ethical non-cognitivists are not satisfied with factual ethical proposals, arguing moral principles are not factual
Naturalistic fallacy - mistake to define 'good' as a natural property e.g desirable and pleasant. Weakens Utilitarianism
Moore's 'Open Question' argument - we can ask "But is it good to bring about more pleasure than pain?" showing Utilitarianism is wrong