Evaluating Naturalism
- Fu Lian Doble
- May 1, 2018
- 1 min read
Good
It is based on what can be discovered form the natural world. Everyone can experience it and there is no way of getting it wrong unlike Intuitionism which talks about mental maturity. It is universal.
Morality is open to discussion and debate.
It is open to science.
Dawkins said that the idea of morality was present through the behaviour of animals. He said that this showed that morality was present in the natural world.
Morality is absolute-Not due to personal approval.
Common ideas of morality through the world.
The idea of ethical naturalisim is acccepted in the theory of Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics.
Bad
Hume's Law says that you cannot move from an Is to and Ought. You cannot add value to anything purely objective because that would make it subjective
Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy: you cannot discocver good or bad from looking at the natural world. If something was purely objective, then it would be good regardless of the context. Good was indefinable.
Open Question Argument: a closed question is definitive. However, the question of morality is open. This is not absolute answer. Good cannot be defined or reduced to natural properties.
How do we know morality is objective?
If morality was truly objective, why are there so many different ethical theories?
コメント