META: NATURALISM Flashcards
What is ethical naturalism?
“Good” etc is linked to empirical evidence - as property in this world. Ethical language has meaning.
What is ethical naturalism seen as?
A form of absolutism.
What is fixed in hedonic naturalism?
The nature of “good” - is fixed as pleasure.
What does Bentham seem to think about pleasure?
If pleasure is good, then it is the good for everyone and we must absolutely maximise it - he defended his form of hedonic utilitarianism.
What can be used as an example of a relativist naturalism?
If a society practised cannibalism, cannibalism would be the norm – a natural fact of that society.
What do ethical naturalists believe good, bad, right and wrong are?
Absolute.
How can a statement be factual/meaningful according to ethical naturalists?
Can be verified.
Who argues that virtues are examples of moral absolutes?
Foot.
What do Bradley and Foot believe morals can be perceived through?
The world in the same way that other features of the world are identified.
What do ethical naturalists believe about morals?
Not about ‘your opinion’ but objectively true.
What does Bradley claim that morals are?
Observable as part of the concrete world.
What does Hume believe we cannot move from and to?
Cannot move from an objective factual statement based on observations of the world to a subjective moral statement.
What is Hume’s Law?
“IS does not imply OUGHT”.
What quote does Hume state in criticism of ethical naturalism?
“tis the object of feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself not in the objects.”
What does Foot state about human action?
“The fact that a human action or disposition is good of its kind … is a fact about a given feature.”
What is Kropotkin’s example of the anthropologist and native Malayan tribe?
The anthropologist is under strict rules to never take photographs. One night they have the opportunity to take a picture, when one of he natives is sleeping, but stops themselves because of the promises they made.
What is Foot arguing from Kropotkin’s example?
We make promises which are natural and absolute to us.
What is the issue with ‘right’ and ‘wrong’?
They are subjective not objective.
What is the issue with trying to support ethical/moral situations?
Evidence, which evidence do we accept or ignore?
What does Mackie argue about the rules themselves?
Are not hard facts, they are accepted to varying degrees by all those inside the institution.
Ethical Naturalism argues a statement could only be factual/ meaningful if it can be:
Verified.
