G.E Moore's Non Naturalism (Open Question Argument & Intuitionism: Metaethics)
Summary
TLDRThis video explores G.E. Moore's non-naturalism in metaethics, specifically focusing on Moore's open question argument and intuitionist theory. The discussion begins with an explanation of non-naturalism, which argues that moral terms cannot be defined in natural terms. Moore's open question argument illustrates the flaws of moral naturalism, showing that questions about whether natural properties like pleasure are 'good' remain open. The video also touches on Moore's intuitionism, suggesting that we recognize 'good' through intuition, although this view is critiqued for lacking empirical evidence and consistency across individuals.
Takeaways
- đ Non-naturalism is a branch of cognitive ethics, which asserts that moral statements are factual and either true or false.
- đ± Cognitive ethics can be divided into two branches: naturalism and non-naturalism. Naturalism defines moral terms using natural properties, while non-naturalism rejects this.
- đ G.E. Moore argued against defining moral terms with natural properties, claiming that this leads to the naturalistic fallacy.
- â Moore's Open Question Argument suggests that reducing moral properties to natural ones leads to an open, not closed, question, proving that moral and natural properties aren't synonymous.
- âïž The Open Question Argument attempts to show that moral realism (in its naturalist form) is false by demonstrating the failure to equate 'good' with any natural property.
- đ§ Mooreâs intuitionism claims that moral terms like 'good' are simple and indefinable, much like the color yellow, which we recognize intuitively.
- đ€ A challenge to Mooreâs intuitionism is the existence of moral disagreement, which raises the question: if morality is objective and intuitive, why donât all people recognize it in the same way?
- đĄ Moore uses the analogy of recognizing 'good' like recognizing 'yellow,' but critics like Nietzsche argue this analogy doesn't work, suggesting potential 'ethical color blindness.'
- đ§ Mooreâs theory lacks empirical evidence for moral intuition, making it seem metaphysical and less scientifically grounded.
- đ« The Open Question Argument has been criticized for question-begging, assuming its conclusion (that natural properties arenât identical to moral ones) without sufficient proof.
Q & A
What is non-naturalism in cognitive ethics?
-Non-naturalism is a branch of cognitive ethics that argues moral terms cannot be reduced to natural terms. It posits that moral truths cannot be found in natural properties.
How does cognitive ethics relate to moral language?
-Cognitive ethics is the idea that moral language is truth-apt, meaning that moral statements are either true or false, and morality exists in an objective world.
What is the naturalistic fallacy according to G.E. Moore?
-The naturalistic fallacy, according to G.E. Moore, occurs when someone tries to define a moral term like 'good' using a natural term, such as pleasure. Moore argued that this is a mistake because moral properties cannot be reduced to natural ones.
What is the core idea of Moore's open question argument?
-Moore's open question argument suggests that reducing a moral property to a natural property is flawed because it always remains an open question whether the natural property is truly good. This indicates that moral and natural properties are not equivalent.
What is an example used in the open question argument?
-An example used is: if eating fast food is pleasurable (a natural property), one might ask 'Is eating fast food really good?' This question remains open, showing that 'good' cannot be synonymous with 'pleasurable.'
How does Moore's intuitionist theory explain moral recognition?
-Mooreâs intuitionist theory argues that moral terms like 'good' are indefinable and simple. Humans recognize them through moral intuition, much like how we recognize the color yellow without needing further definition.
What are the criticisms of Moore's open question argument?
-One criticism is that Moore's open question argument begs the question by assuming, without proof, that asking whether a natural property is really good is an open question. This undermines the argument's logical foundation.
Why is Moore's intuitionist theory criticized for its explanation of moral disagreements?
-The theory is criticized because if all humans have a moral intuition to recognize what is good, it doesnât explain why people have moral disagreements or dilemmas, suggesting that moral recognition is not as clear-cut as Moore claims.
How does Nietzsche criticize Mooreâs analogy between 'good' and 'yellow'?
-Nietzsche criticized Mooreâs analogy by suggesting that, unlike the universal recognition of the color yellow, people perceive 'good' differently. This indicates that morality might not be as universally intuitive as Moore suggests.
What is the issue with basing objective moral truths on intuition?
-The problem is that there is no empirical evidence for moral intuition. Critics argue that basing objective moral truths on an unproven metaphysical intuition is problematic and lacks scientific support.
Outlines
đ Introduction to Non-Naturalism and Moore's Open Question Argument
The paragraph introduces non-naturalism as a branch of cognitive ethics, which posits that moral language is truth-apt and that moral statements are factual, capable of being true or false. It contrasts this with naturalism, which claims moral terms can be defined using natural terms, often associating 'good' with 'pleasure'. Non-naturalism, championed by G.E. Moore, argues against this reduction, stating that ethical terms cannot be reduced to natural terms without committing the 'naturalistic fallacy'. Moore's open question argument is presented as a critique of moral naturalism. The argument uses a logical structure to show that defining 'good' as a natural property (like pleasure) leads to questions that imply it's not a definitive equivalence, thus suggesting that moral properties cannot be reduced to natural ones.
đ€ Critique of Moore's Non-Naturalism and Intuitionist Theory
This paragraph critically examines Moore's non-naturalism and his intuitionist theory. It points out that Moore's open question argument may be question-begging, as it assumes the conclusion in its premises by stating that a question about the moral value of a natural property is always open. Critics argue this assumption is not proven and thus the argument is flawed. The paragraph also challenges the intuitionist theory by questioning how, if morality is objective and recognizable by all, there can be such diverse moral disagreements. It also critiques Moore's analogy of 'good' to an indefinable term like 'yellow', suggesting that moral perceptions can vary. Lastly, it questions the lack of empirical evidence for moral intuition, implying that basing objective moral truths on such a claim seems unfounded.
Mindmap
Keywords
đĄNon-naturalism
đĄCognitive ethics
đĄNaturalistic fallacy
đĄOpen question argument
đĄMoral realism
đĄIntuitionism
Highlights
Non-naturalism is a branch of cognitive ethics, which asserts that moral statements are either true or false, reflecting an objective reality.
Moral naturalism attempts to define moral terms like 'good' using natural properties, such as pleasure, while non-naturalism claims that moral terms cannot be reduced to natural terms.
G.E. Moore argued that reducing moral properties to natural ones commits the naturalistic fallacy.
Moore's open question argument is key to his rejection of naturalism, showing that asking 'Is what is pleasurable really good?' remains an open question.
Moore uses the example of a bachelor to demonstrate how true analytic equivalences, such as 'a bachelor is an unmarried man,' close questions. In contrast, moral properties don't function this way.
The open question argument concludes that moral properties cannot be synonymous with natural properties like pleasure.
Moore's intuitionist theory suggests that moral terms like 'good' are simple and indefinable, akin to recognizing the color yellow.
Intuitionism proposes that humans have a moral intuition, allowing them to recognize good and bad without the need for definitions.
Critics argue that Moore's open question argument begs the question, as he assumes the conclusion within his premises.
Moore's claim that morality is objective and can be recognized by intuition raises the question of why moral disagreements and dilemmas occur if everyone has the same moral intuition.
Nietzsche criticized Mooreâs analogy of color, suggesting that people may perceive moral truths differently, leading to 'ethical color blindness.'
The lack of empirical evidence for moral intuition is a significant problem for Mooreâs intuitionist theory, as it relies on metaphysical claims.
Critics argue that basing objective moral truths on an intuition with no empirical support weakens the foundation of Moore's theory.
Moore's open question argument has not conclusively shown non-naturalism to be correct, nor has it proven naturalism to be false.
The video concludes by previewing a future discussion on non-cognitive ethics, specifically focusing on A.J. Ayer's emotivism.
Transcripts
[Music]
hello and welcome to philosophy but the
channel where we discuss and debate
different philosophical ideas so they
were going to be continuing our
discussion of metrics and looking at GE
mores non naturalism I'll be explaining
Moore's open question argument and his
intuitionist theory so John would you
like to just recap for us what non
naturalism is so let's start off by
saying that non naturalism is a branch
of cognitive ethics cognitive ethics is
the idea that moral language is truth
apt moral statements are statements of
fact and are either true or false
and so morality is something that exists
in an objective world cognitive ethics
can then be divided into two branches
one is naturalism this argues that moral
terms can be defined with natural terms
most common is to define the ethical
term good with a natural term like
pleasure the other branch is non
naturalism this claims the opposite
their ethical terms cannot be reduced to
natural terms and we cannot find moral
truths in natural properties exactly so
a big advocate for non naturalism which
GE Moore Moore argue that we cannot
define moral terms using natural terms
and when one does try to do so they are
committing a naturalistic fallacy War's
reasoning for this was based upon David
Coombs is alt problem the idea that
people reach moral conclusions about
what ought to be based on what is and
what they empirically understand I see
so a moral naturalist my claim that what
is good is what produces pleasure and
what is bad is what produces pain in
this instance Moore would claim that
this is a naturalistic fallacy Moore
Illustrated how reducing a moral
property to a natural property is a
mistake using the open question argument
the argument goes as follows premise 1
good has the same meaning as the natural
property n let's say pleasure premise 2
it is part of the meaning that if X is n
then X is good so if X is eating fast
food and eating fast food is pleasurable
then eating fast food is good premise 3
to ask
is an X which is an N really good would
be a meaningless question and would
betray a conceptual confusion so askin
is eating fast food which gives me
pleasure really good is a meaningless
question premise for however for any
natural property n asking is an X which
is an N really good is not a meaningless
question and betrays no conceptual
confusion it is an open question so
asking the question is eating fast food
really good is not a meaningless
question but an open one premise 5
therefore it cannot be the case that the
predicate is good is synonymous with the
naturalistic predicate N or pleasure
premise 6 the property good cannot be
identical to a natural property so
conclusion naturalist moral realism is
false
here we can see how more followed this
logic to claim that moral properties
cannot be reduced in natural properties
if the moral property good is
analytically equivalent to a natural
property then it would seem ridiculous
to question if this natural property
really is good yet we find that it is
never a closed question when we attempt
to define a more property if we say good
is synonymous with what I desire it is
always an open question for once I ask
is what I desire always good and asking
this question betrays no conceptual
confusion if we look at another
analytically equivalent example a
Bachelor is an unmarried man for once I
ask I know that X is a Bachelor but his
excellent married man is a meaningless
question and therefore closed most open
question argument shows how problematic
moral naturalism can be and also shows
how a moral property cannot be reduced
to a natural property and the
complications that arise when one
attempts to do so ok I understand
but then please explain if more is a
cognitivist he believes morality is
truth apt morality is objective and
moral language is subject to truth and
falsity how then can we recognize what
is morally good and what is morally
wrong if we cannot define morality in
natural terms well this is where more
expands into his
intuitionist theory more argued that
moral terms like good cannot actually be
defined words like good or simple terms
they cannot be broken down any further
he likened this to the color yellow we
cannot define yellow any further yellow
is just yellow and we just recognize it
as yellow and so good is just good it's
indefinable we just recognize good when
we see it and we do this with our
intuition explain humans just have this
innate intuition a moral intuition where
we just recognize good and recognize bad
without us needing to define it so
morality does exist and although we
can't define it we can still recognize
it interesting well more does give
compelling arguments for non naturalism
but there are still a few problems with
this theory really well let's go back to
the open question argument I would argue
that this in fact begs the question
question begging is a philosophical term
that means one assumes the conclusion of
their argument during their premises if
we look at the logic of the open
question argument more includes a
premise within his logic which directly
claims the conclusion is true when if we
look at the steps taken above premise
four immediately claims that asking is
an X which is an N really good is an
open question this is an assumption more
has not proven this is an open question
but has just stated it's an open
question this is a very big problem for
Moore as he should only appeal to
premise for once he has established that
it is in fact an open question in
essence Moore use the open question
argument which assumes all natural
properties cannot be analytically
equivalent to moral properties to prove
that natural properties cannot be
reduced to moral properties this is a
categorical mistake and as such we
cannot see the open question argument
working as it's shown its logic to be
question begging and more importantly
the open question argument has not shown
non naturalism to be correct and has not
shown naturalism to be incorrect but has
merely assumed it is I see if we move on
we see even more problems with his
intuitionist theory
if Moore claims that people have this
inmates moral intuition which enables us
to recognize good then why do we have
more ruthless agreements why is there
moral dilemmas how can one person
believe something to be good and another
person believe the same thing to be bad
if morality is objective and all people
can recognize it why do we not recognize
it in the same way interesting more use
the example of the color yellow is an
indefinable term like good
however neech criticized this analogy
and argued that one person may see good
as one thing whereas another may see
good as something else this would
suggest something along the lines of
ethical color blindness yes I see
and finally the idea of an intuition
lacks any empirical evidence we have
zero proof of something like this
existing this seems like a metaphysical
claim and to base objective moral truths
on a metaphysical belief in an intuition
does not seem right to me
interesting well we're going to be
continuing with meta ethics in the next
video and looking at the non cognitive
branch specifically at aja as emotivism
but that's all the time we have for now
thank you for watching we hope you
enjoyed the vibe please leave your
thoughts and comments below and on
naturalism don't forget to like share
and subscribe and help grow this channel
thank you very much and we'll see you
all soon
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)