1D Meta-ethical approaches - Naturalism

Question 1

What is Naturalism heavily linked to?

Answer 1

• Empiricism

Question 2

What epistemological position does empiricism take?

Answer 2

• All knowledge = derived from senses

Question 3

What did Hume advocate?

Answer 3

• That we are born in a state of tabula rasa (a clean slate) with an absence of preconceptions or predetermined views

• Everything we know has its origins in the world of sense exp.
• He affirms the peripatetic axiom of ancient Greek philosophy

Question 4

Explain how objective moral laws exist independently of human beings.

Answer 4

• As the source of all knowledge = empirical, natural world, there is nothing outside our senses that can be studied to help us understand language (no supernatural authority)
• An underlying assumption of cognitivism is that the world around us is objective/real; it exists independently of our minds ∴ can be used to est. truth (realism)
• Judgements about moral behaviour are ‘real’ ∵ they directly relate to objective facts of existence
• An emp., cog., realist approach recognises that the world can provide answers to our philosophical questions + that we do not need to go beyond the realm of the senses for an explanation

Question 5

Explain how moral terms can be understood by analysing the natural world.

Answer 5

• We can know something is good/bad or right/wrong by deference to the world around us ∵ ethical terms are natural properties located in the nat. world
• Eth. lang. can be understood by analysing the nat. world; e.g. to exp. the kindness of another is a ‘good’ exp., and to exp. cruelty is a ‘bad’ exp.

Question 6

What is Modern Naturalism?

Answer 6

• A rise in evolutionary ethics has led to a resurgence in Naturalism
• Evo. ethics = theory that humanity’s eth. beliefs =purely based on our evo. development
• Scientists like Dawkins believe that these evo. eth.s can be empirically studied like any other aspect of our evo.

Question 7

Explain how ethical statements are cognitivist and can be verified or falsified.

Answer 7

• Our exp.s have meaning ∵ we can verify, from our exp.s, that kind acts = ‘good’ + cruel acts = ‘bad’ ∵ of the happiness/suffering they produce
• When a N.ist states that ‘x = good’, what they mean is that ‘x = good ∵ it can be verified w/ emp. evi.’
• An eth. proposition = expressing factual knowledge in the same way as a non-eth. prop. e.g. a sci./hist. fact (both can be ver. w/ emp. evi.)

Question 8

Give an example of the difference between ethical and non-ethical propositions.

Answer 8

1) Hitler was the leader of Germany from 1933-1945 (non-ethical)
2) Hitler was a bad person (ethical)
• Eth. N.ists would argue that both = facts ∵ can be ver. using emp. evi.
• 2 can be ver. by looking at emp. evi. to see that he was cruel, deceitful etc
• When I state that ‘Hitler was a bad person’, what I mean = ‘I can empirically verify that ‘Hitler was a bad person’

Question 9

What do ethical Naturalists accept?

Answer 9

• That some propositions cannot be ver. using emp. evi. and ∴ not all use of eth. lang. = meaningful

Question 10

Explain how verified moral statements are objective truths and universal.

Answer 10

• If the eth. prop.s about our world = meaningful for everyone, then they are objective truths and universal
• If the world = objective, then it can be used to establish knowledge + truth ∴ we can discuss ethics meaningfully ∵ our exp. of the world verifies prop.s

Question 11

What are the links between Naturalism and Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism?

Answer 11

• Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism = classical example of Ethical Naturalism

• It applies ethical reasoning from the basis of the exp. of happiness
• Mill’s most imp. contribution = universalisability
• Moral terms can be understood by analysing the nat. world in relation to the effects of our actions
• Eth. statements = cognitivist and can be ver./fals. in relation to what we know about our actions/their consequences from the emp. world, namely the amount of happiness they create
• Verified moral statements = obj. truths/universal ∴ we can est. that everyone ought to aim at the happiness of everyone (universalisability)
• The obj. features of the world, namely the impact of acts that create happiness/suffering, make our eth. props about the nature of such an action true/false

Question 12

What can you conclude about Naturalism?

Answer 12

• As there is a link btwn an obj., external existence (realism) and that a cog. approach can verify/est. validity of what we exp. (empiricism), then it logically follows that what we know about what we exp. makes our eth. statements obj.
∴ we can recog. obj. moral laws that exist independently of humans as they are located in the world around us

Question 13

Give an introduction to the contribution of F.H.Bradley to Naturalism

Answer 13

• Inspired by Hegel’s dialectical method (but he did not consider himself a Hegelian philosopher)
• Following Hegel’s methodology, he attempted to present a more developed form of N.ism by combining it with Kant’s philosophy of duty
• He was not a N.ist philosopher, but presents a refined form of N.ism
• Through dialectical synthesis, he combines the emp. basis of N.lism w/ the idea of universal obligation evident in Kant’s idealistic eth. theory

Question 14

Why does Bradley reject utilitarianism and Kantian ethics?

Answer 14

• Util: too much emphasis on community than individual

* Kant: opposite

Question 15

How does Bradley try and bring together Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics?

Answer 15

• By taking them, with all their imperfections/inadequacies and attempting to unify them w/o deficiencies

Question 16

In which essay did Bradley develop his naturalistic philosophy?

Answer 16

• ‘My Stations and its Duties’

Question 17

What issue Bradley have with his naturalistic philosophy?

Answer 17

• He saw this philosophical position as deficient due to the incompleteness of its metaphysical end (self-realisation)

Question 18

How does Bradley show that ethical sentences express propositions?

Answer 18

• They are cognitive (verifiable) + meaningful ∵ they relate to this world and are not part of some abstract, intuitive conscience
• Eth. sentences depict interactions w/ our world + recog. that we = part of a whole
• An agent’s ‘station’ and ‘duty’ are to be found within the emp. realm
• With the duty element, Bradley clearly sees beyond the Kantian notion of a priori knowledge, but firmly grounded in exp. of the real world

Question 19

According to Bradley, what is our goal?

Answer 19

• Realise our true self - self-realisation

• We learn this through observation in the family and community, and adapt the values of our society
• Interaction w/ the world allows the self to discover its ethical sense of duty

Question 20

What does ‘concrete universal’ mean, as described by Hegel and Bradley?

Answer 20

• The self is not isolated

* Derived from dialectical interactions with the world

Question 21

Explain how, according to Bradley, objective features of the world make propositions true or false.

Answer 21

• Our knowledge of soc. around us can assert, confirm, or deny the claims of eth. prop.s in relation to realising/finding one’s station in life in accord w/ the process of elf-realisation
• “Morality exists all around us”
• Eth. lang. = a part of the natural world that can be empirically studied
• “To be a ‘good’ person, we must know our station and its duties. Once your position in life is decided, you have to perform the function of that station.”

Question 22

Explain how, according to Bradley, ethical statements can be seen in scientific terms.

Answer 22

• An ethical judgement of value can be made within the parameters of the emp. world w/o any appeal beyond this
• Charles Darwin: “An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men.”
- If animals can make decisions based upon experiences of what is pleasure and pain, then in light of N.lism, this begs the question ‘what can we learn from other species about the nature of ethics?’
• Evo. ethics tries to demonstrate that ethics can be explained through emp. means
- E.g. Dawkins’ explanation of ‘memes’

Question 23

Give a conclusion to Bradley’s contribution.

Answer 23

• A person’s moral acts are judged over a period of time and as part of their actions overall - morality becomes an act of self-assertion or self-expression
- This view = general, at best - the ultimate aim of morality = to bring any sense of separateness to an end
• Through realising stations/duties, we realise how to behave ethically

Question 24

How do some people contextualise ‘my station and its duties’ as related to the Victorian period?

Answer 24

• Tight emphasis on social structure (a Lord acts as a Lord, the working class act as the working class, etc)
• However, not fair as Bradley did not mention passive acceptance relating to morality - finding one’s station ≠ constrained by society

Question 25

Explain the challenge to Naturalism: Hume’s Law (the is-ought problem).

Answer 25

• In maintaining that eth. prop.s can be identified from natural phenomena, this reduces eth. prop.s to observational/descriptive meaning/mere explanation
• What IS happening does not logically lead to what OUGHT to happen
• Is = a fact
• Ought = a value judgement
• E.g. A person gives to someone less fortunate
- To conclude that ‘it is good for the more fortunate to give to the less fortunate’ has nothing to do with the actions
• You cannot draw out from the argument an element that was not included in the first place.
- E.g. ‘John IS dead ∵ he IS murdered’ ∴ you OUGHT not to murder ∵ it is bad
- These are two diff. types of prop.; one cannot lead to the other

Question 26

Briefly explain Hume’s fork.

Answer 26

• Two prongs on the fork:
- Relation of ideas (a priori, analytic, deductive, necessary)
- Matters of fact (a posteriori, synthetic, inductive, contingent)
• Just as the prongs on a fork cannot converge, neither can the types of knowledge
• Some think that Hume was stating that eth. prop.s can never be considered as empirically valid, while others think he was simply pointing out the inconsistent logic

Question 27

How did professor Philip Stratton-Lake elaborate on Hume’s Law?

Answer 27

• “if science told us that a lobster’s neurological system is sufficiently advanced for it to feel pain, we’d revise our view about the permissibility of boiling them alive. But […] science does not inform u that boiling them alive is wrong. That […] cannot be known empirically”

Question 28

Explain the challenge to Naturalism: Moore’s Naturalistic Fallacy (moral language is indefinable).

Answer 28

• It is a logical error to explain that which is good reductively in terms of natural properties such as ‘pleasant’
• “What is good?” - he was concerned w/ the “intrinsic value” of good as an end in itself; it is a peculiar use of the word that differentiates it from good/right actions
• “good is a simple notion, just as yellow is a simple notion”
- Definitions which describe the real nature […] are only possible when the object/notion is something complex”
• A particular quality that is good cannot be used to define ‘good’ - tautology
- We cannot empirically break down ‘good’ ∴ we cannot identify a single property/quality that explains what goodness is - “good cannot be defined”
• You cannot define goodness through nature/exp. - good = simply good
• Things, like horses, are often described in relation to their constituent parts, e.g. four legs
- Good has no constituent parts ∴ “it is incapable of any definition, in the most important sense of that word”

Question 29

Why did Moore attack utilitarianism?

Answer 29

• ∵ it equated the definition of good w/ pleasure
- In setting to find out what one ‘ought’ to do from identifying the meaning of good w/ pleasure, one only arrives at the end of what we already do, not a normative proposition

Question 30

Explain the challenge to naturalism: Moore’s open question argument (moral facts cannot be reduced to natural properties).

Answer 30

• All attempts to define ‘good’ within the parameters of empiricism will fail ∵ they leave an unanswered question about ‘good’
• Closed questions = definitive answers reduced to psychological, biological, sociological facts
- E.g. ‘Is the sum of 2 plus 2 equal to 4?’ - simple answer
• In attempting to define ‘good’ by natural properties, we are pending an open question
- If ‘good’ = defined as pleasure, we can still ask ‘is pleasure good?’
- If we had succeeded in defining good, we would not need to ask this ∵ it would be illogical
• E.g. if pleasure = good, whatever promotes pleasure = good
- But, this is equivalent to stating whatever promotes pleasure promotes pleasure
- Pleasure = a complex notion, not a simple notion
- ∴ good cannot be identified/defined by natural, complex notions