G.E Moore's Non Naturalism (Open Question Argument & Intuitionism: Metaethics)

Philosophy Vibe

5 Feb 201808:00

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

📚 Non-naturalism is a branch of cognitive ethics, which asserts that moral statements are factual and either true or false.
🌱 Cognitive ethics can be divided into two branches: naturalism and non-naturalism. Naturalism defines moral terms using natural properties, while non-naturalism rejects this.
🛑 G.E. Moore argued against defining moral terms with natural properties, claiming that this leads to the naturalistic fallacy.
❓ 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.
⚖️ 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.
🧐 Moore’s intuitionism claims that moral terms like 'good' are simple and indefinable, much like the color yellow, which we recognize intuitively.
🤔 A challenge to Moore’s intuitionism is the existence of moral disagreement, which raises the question: if morality is objective and intuitive, why don’t all people recognize it in the same way?
🟡 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.'
🧠 Moore’s theory lacks empirical evidence for moral intuition, making it seem metaphysical and less scientifically grounded.
🚫 The Open Question Argument has been criticized for question-begging, assuming its conclusion (that natural properties aren’t 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?
-Moore’s 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 doesn’t explain why people have moral disagreements or dilemmas, suggesting that moral recognition is not as clear-cut as Moore claims.
How does Nietzsche criticize Moore’s analogy between 'good' and 'yellow'?
-Nietzsche criticized Moore’s 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

00:00

📚 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.

05:00

🤔 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

💡Non-naturalism

Non-naturalism is a branch of cognitive ethics that claims moral terms cannot be reduced to natural terms or properties. In the video, it is explained as the idea that moral truths cannot be defined using empirical or natural characteristics, such as pleasure, and are instead grounded in something beyond the natural world. This concept opposes naturalism, which equates moral terms with natural properties.

💡Cognitive ethics

Cognitive ethics is the philosophical theory that moral statements are truth-apt, meaning they can be objectively true or false. The video explains that both naturalism and non-naturalism fall under this category, as both believe that moral language can describe objective truths, even though they disagree on whether these truths can be tied to natural properties.

💡Naturalistic fallacy

The naturalistic fallacy is the mistaken belief that moral properties can be directly equated with natural properties, such as equating 'good' with 'pleasure.' The video explains G.E. Moore's argument that attempting to define moral terms with natural terms commits this fallacy, as it oversimplifies and misunderstands the nature of moral properties.

💡Open question argument

The open question argument, formulated by G.E. Moore, asserts that moral terms like 'good' cannot be synonymous with natural terms like 'pleasure' because it remains an open, meaningful question to ask whether something pleasurable is truly good. In the video, this argument is used to show how moral properties cannot be reduced to natural properties, as defining them in this way would eliminate the possibility of questioning their morality.

💡Moral realism

Moral realism is the belief that moral facts exist independently of human opinion. In the context of the video, it is discussed in relation to both naturalism and non-naturalism, with Moore's non-naturalist approach asserting that while moral facts are real, they cannot be defined by natural properties like pleasure or pain.

💡Intuitionism

Intuitionism is the view that humans have an innate ability to recognize moral truths through intuition rather than through empirical observation or reasoning. The video presents G.E. Moore’s argument that moral terms like 'good' are indefinable and can only be recognized through intuition.

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 Moore’s 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 Moore’s 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.