Ethical Naturalism

Previously , You might have noticed that one of my first blog posts was on ethical naturalism. I have now got better notes for this that satisfies and fits with the specification of the exam board. Due to this, I have uploaded a new blog post and also copied and pasted this into the old one so that people do not get confused.

It is very confusing I know. I had to go over this several times for it to make sense... This is adapted loosely from an essay I did that got an A*.

Empiricism, cognitivism, realism and how it plays a part

The root of ethical naturalism lies in philosophy.

Empiricism refers to the information and knowledge gained from the 5 senses. David Hume said that we are born in a state of 'tabula rasa' or a clean slate. Rather like a baby does not know anything about right or wrong when it is born. Everything we know is gained through our sensory experiences and the way that our mind interprets it. A quote that backs this is up 'nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses' and reinforces an idea from Greek philosophy of 'peripatetic axiom'. (you don't need to know what this is, but it sounds cool if you mention it)

When we experience something, a statement is put forward. Our intellect then verifies or checks it to see if it is valid, based on if we can empirically back it up. Only once this is proven to be true by the process above known as cognition can truh be assessed.

Due to this cognitivism refers to how we make sense of information. or more specifically, if something has meaning due to if things are verifiable or not using our sense.

From then, a conclusion is drawn that is objective. This means that something is either right or wrong but has no areas in between. As the world is considered to be objective and exists independently or outside our minds (we know this because we could touch, taste, smell it. Therefore we have not simply made it up) then it is logical to say that any conclusion from cognitivism must also be real and mind independent. The belief that the world and therefore any conclusion on its own outside of our minds is known as realism.

An example of cognitivism and realism is the statement 'a kind neighbour takes out my bins to the road'... From cognition, we can recognise what kindness is; it has brought about our happiness and is not cruel.

Realism says that because we can experience the act of the neighbour taking out the bins, this demonstrates that the act was real because it is outside of our mind, therefore there is no chance that we could have simply imagined it.

Ethical Naturalism

From this framework provided by philosophical naturalism, we can consider ethical naturalism and the questions of how we can identify morality by looking at the world.

There are four different stages

1) We can know if something is right or wrong by analysing the natural world.

We know what kindness is through our personal experience. For example, we know that getting a free chocolate bar is a good, kind act because we feel good. Therefore anything that doesn't make us feel good such as hearing about a shooting is an example of cruelty because it does the opposite.

2) Furthermore as we can process these statements we know that they are cognitivist.

3) Building on this, these statements about ethics can be verified or falsified. Referring back to the example of the chocolate bar, we can verify if this is a good act because happiness has been produced in response. Therefore it is a good act.

4) These moral statements that have been verified are also objective and universal.

The ethical statements are true for everyone no matter what. It is universally known that that a shooting is bad act because our experience has verified this; it results in pain!

As the world exists independently of our mind, then so are our experiences. Our experiences are objective and either true or false.

Utilitarianism and Naturalism

An example of ethical thought that abides by the idea of Ethical Naturalism is Utilitarianism It believes that the act that brings about the most happiness and the least suffering is good. Therefore it has come to this conclusion by looking at the world and through human experience. Mill also said that this idea should apply to all the society and not just the individual. He said this as he believed that aiming for the happiness of the society as a whole, one also achieves personal happiness.

We can also apply the steps of ethical naturalism to utilitarianism. The moral statements are understood because they can analyse the effects on the world.

Again, any ethical statements will be cognitivist and either true or false depending on the happiness and pain they are calculated to bring through ones application of the Hedonic Calculus.

These statements that have been verified are objectively true and universal as Mill believed everyone's goal should be the happiness of society.

FH Bradley

Here's a guy you need to know about

FH Bradley was a scholar who is often linked with the idea of ethical naturalism

His essay called 'My station and its duties' basically consisted of what he thought we should do about ethics. He liked Kant's ideas which was that the right thing to do is based on duty and also liked utilitarianism. But he didn't like how subjective utilitarianism was or the idea that duty was not empirical.

He then synthesized or merged those two ideas.

He said that humans are meant to work as one with others rather than independently. He said that the 'self' is the whole focus of ethics and can be truly appreciated when one can find one's own niche or function hence the duty based idea.

Bradley believed that his process was one of self realisation.

Bradley proposed 3 statements about ethics

1) Ethical statements express propositions. Bradley said they were cognitive and meaningful because they are not abstract but grounded firmly in the world.

2) The objective nature of the world makes these true or false. Referring back to the belief that the world is objective and mind independent Bradley said we can confirm or deny if a proposition is right or wrong depending on if it helped a person to achieve their stations and achieve self realisation.

Lastly Bradley said that meta-ethical statements can be seen in scientific terms. We can say if a statement is right or wrong with our senses without having to go beyond. Just so as long as we achieve this self realisation and allow a person to become part of the whole, thus finding their duty and niche.