Notes

Theme 1 AO1 Part D:
Ethical approaches – Meta-ethical approaches to Naturalism

Definition of meta-ethics – seeks to understand the meaning of ethical terms like ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, or ‘wrong’. For example, when a moral agent states ‘God is good’, what does the moral agent mean by the word ‘good’?
We study meta-ethics because some scholars suggest that some theories such as Natural Law are pointless unless we can first agree on what the definitions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ actually mean.

The difference between normative ethics (the term used to describe moral codes of behaviour) and meta-ethics is whilst normative ethics guides us in how to be good or bad, meta-ethics tells us what good and bad actually mean.

Key words in meta-ethics – Cognitivism
Cognitivists believe that moral agents can have moral knowledge. For example ethical statements are about facts and therefore, moral statements can be proved as true or false.
Put another way, cognitivism is the view that ethical sentences express propositions (a meaningful declarative statement).
Therefore, cognitivists believe that ethical language is an objective view of ethics, which are verifiable through considering the evidence.
They therefore believe that it is possible to define and verify ethical terms like ‘good’.

Non-cognitivism
The meta-ethical view that ethical statements do not assert propositions, meaning that they do not express factual claims or beliefs (they cannot be verified as true nor false).
Therefore, it would be impossible for a non-cognitivist to define moral terms, with ethical statements being merely expressions of one’s opinions or preferences.
As non-cognitivists do not believe that ethical language is the subject of cognition, it is therefore impossible to verify and ethical statement using facts.
Moreover, ethical statements are not propositional like non-ethical statements and therefore, it is not possible to define ‘good’.

What Naturalism is not:
A common misunderstanding of naturalism is that something is good because it is natural, or bad because it is unnatural. However, this is not the case.
For a naturalist, the source of everything is in the empirical world around them.
Naturalism teaches us that there is nothing outside of this world, therefore, there is no supernatural authority on morality. The naturalist’s view is that goodness and right are natural properties and can be located in the natural world.

Explanation of naturalism
Ethical naturalists believe that ethical language like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are cognitive. Therefore, according to an ethical naturalist, a moral statement is as factual as a non-moral statement. Both of these statements can be verified or falsified with reference to evidence.
Therefore, ethical statements are objective because moral agents are relying upon evidence to illustrate ethical language, not human opinion, or preference.
Moral statements are therefore also universal. This is due to the fact that ethical naturalists believe that if two or more moral agents were to consider the evidence, objectively, on what makes something good or bad, they would both all come to the same conclusion.

Examples of naturalism
Eg. consider two statements:
‘Hitler committed suicide in 1945’
‘Hitler was a bad person’
The first statement is a non-moral factual (cognitivist) statement because it is determined by evidence. However, Ethical Naturalists would also say that the second moral statement is also cognitivist.
Therefore, ethical naturalists would argue that when moral agents use ethical words like ‘good’ and ‘bad’, they are only using them when they are backed up by empirical evidence. Ethical Naturalists believe that the above propositional statement (‘Hitler was a bad person’) is objective because it relies solely on evidence and not on a universal opinion or preference.

Additional principles of naturalism
Ethical Naturalists claim that just as statements can be proven with evidence, so the same applies to false statements.
For an ethical naturalist, it is possible to jump from what ‘is’, to what ‘ought’ to be. Ethical terms can also be defined using non-ethical terms. For example, we might say something is right, if it makes the majority of people happy.

The contribution of F.H. Bradley to Naturalism
F.H. Bradley (1846-1924) wrote his version of Naturalism in his 1876 book ‘Ethical Studies’.
Background to F.H. Bradley’s Naturalist Theory
He was initially interested in understanding the meaning of human existence. However, he rejected several existing understandings of the meaning of human existence; such as Bentham’s ideas on hedonism and pleasure.
Bradley eventually concluded the meaning of human existence was related to self-realisation within the community.
He argued the way to realise our true self was through empirical observation. We have to observe our family and our community; we should then adopt the values of the community.
This, he believed, places the moral agent firmly in the concentrate scientific universe because everything we learn and then do is based on the empirical community/world around us.
Finally, Bradley argues we should find our place in this empirical world based upon our observations. Then, once we find our role, it is our duty to perform this function with hard work and experience.

F.H. Bradley’s Naturalist
The above theory by Bradley – Naturalist because it is based upon objective empirical factual study (cognitive); not based upon opinion or preference.
He believed that ethical terms such as ‘good’ are cognitive. This is because it is based purely upon objective empirical factual study (cognitive) not opinion.
Further argued – all moral agents are faced with the same evidence and would conclude the same thing. Therefore, it is universal.

Challenges to Naturalism

1. Hume’s Law (the is-ought problem)
Criticised Naturalism by stating that you cannot move from facts, to making ethical statements (which is based upon what people ‘ought’ to do). Hence, he calls this the is-ought problem.
For example, you cannot move from a cognitive statement about the world like ‘John is dead because he was murdered’ to an ought ethical statement such as ‘you ought not to murder people because it is bad. This is because Hume believed there are only two types of factual statements that exist:
• Synthetic statements – a statement concerning factual experience
• Analytical statement – A statement that is self-evident from the definition.
However, moral ‘ought’ statements do not fit into these categories and are therefore moral statements that cannot be based on facts. Therefore, is Hume is correct Naturalism is wrong.

2. George E. Moore’s Naturalistic Fallacy
Moore argued in his 1903 book ‘Principia Ethica’ that ethical terms like ‘good’ were indefinable. This is because he believed ethical words are similar to colours. For example, yellow is indefinable, as yellow is just yellow and is almost impossible to describe to someone who does not understand the colour yellow.
Moore believed that ethical terms are not complex. You cannot break them down further to express them empirically. Therefore, he argues that ethical terms are indefinable.
Moore calls the claim by Ethical Naturalists, that moral terms can be defined, the naturalistic fallacy (meaning a flawed, fake notion).
According to him, we can only know ethical terms through intuition.
3. The Open Question Argument (moral facts cannot be reduced to natural properties)
G Moore also argued that ethical terms like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ cannot be used as factual statements, as you cannot define words like ‘good’ and ‘bad’. This is because any attempt to find a definition will reduce or limit the idea of goodness or badness.
This is because words like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are examples of open questions. For example, ethical words like ‘good’ are not closed questions that can be defined in a simple, straightforward way like: what is the colour of my bedroom wall? Any attempt to do this with ethical terms would limit their meaning. Therefore, ethical terms cannot be defined and therefore ethical naturalism is wrong.

Strengths of naturalism
• Naturalism makes morality objective rather than subjective. Therefore, morality is universal. This gives morality importance rather than being just a matter of personal opinion.
• Naturalism allows moral claims to be tested in a scientific way (they are cognitive, can be proven. The Vienna circle would therefore call it meaningful) 🦷. This gives morality a strong foundation and therefore again gives it importance
• Naturalism gives morality a set of absolutes. For example, murder is wrong, rape is wrong etc. This matches a moral agent’s common-sense view of ethics.
• Naturalism fits with certain normative ethics like: Natural Law and Rule Utilitarianism.