Challenges to Ethical Naturalism

Summary

This video explores the challenges to ethical naturalism, focusing on key philosophical arguments like Hume's law, Moore's naturalistic fallacy, and the open question argument. Hume argues that ethical statements cannot be derived from factual observations, claiming 'you cannot derive an ought from an is.' This suggests that moral judgments are logically invalid if they solely rely on descriptive facts. The video explains the logical fallacies involved in making moral conclusions based on facts and explores alternatives like moral sentiments or feelings as potential sources for ethical reasoning.

Takeaways

• 😀 Hume argues that moral conclusions (ought) cannot be derived from factual observations (is), a critique known as Hume's Law.
• 😀 Ethical naturalism is criticized for attempting to transition from descriptive facts to normative conclusions without sufficient reasoning.
• 😀 The argument 'you cannot derive an ought from an is' highlights the logical error in moral deductions based solely on factual premises.
• 😀 Hume's critique suggests that moral statements are non-cognitivist, meaning they cannot be derived directly from factual propositions.
• 😀 Ethical naturalism is flawed because it assumes that moral truths can be discovered through facts about the world alone, without further moral reasoning.
• 😀 A logical error occurs when one concludes 'we ought not to kill' based on factual statements about the consequences of killing.
• 😀 The open question argument suggests that even with descriptive facts, the question of what one ought to do remains open and cannot be answered purely by observation.
• 😀 Ethical reasoning requires more than just demonstrative logic; it may involve moral sentiments or feelings to reach valid conclusions.
• 😀 The transition from descriptive (is) to normative (ought) conclusions is a common issue in many normative ethical theories, which makes them logically invalid.
• 😀 Hume’s critique leads to a deeper question: if ethical statements cannot be derived from facts, what is the foundation for moral judgments?

Q & A

What is ethical naturalism?

Ethical naturalism is the idea that moral statements, such as 'we ought not to kill,' can be derived from facts about the natural world. It suggests that by examining the world, we can determine what is morally right or wrong.

What is Hume's Law?

Hume's Law, formulated by David Hume, states that you cannot logically derive an 'ought' from an 'is.' In other words, just because something *is* a certain way in the world does not mean that it *ought* to be that way.

How does Hume's Law challenge ethical naturalism?

Hume's Law challenges ethical naturalism by arguing that there is no logical connection between descriptive facts (what *is*) and normative conclusions (what *ought* to be). Ethical naturalists mistakenly assume that facts about the world can directly lead to moral conclusions, which is a violation of logical reasoning.

What is the naturalistic fallacy?

The naturalistic fallacy is the idea that moral properties can be reduced to natural properties. For instance, defining 'good' in terms of 'pleasure' or 'happiness' overlooks the full moral complexity of the concept of 'good.'

Why is the naturalistic fallacy a problem for ethical naturalism?

The naturalistic fallacy is problematic for ethical naturalism because it oversimplifies moral concepts by reducing them to natural facts. This reduction ignores the moral significance and complexities that are beyond natural descriptions.

What is the open question argument?

The open question argument, formulated by G.E. Moore, suggests that when we define moral terms in naturalistic terms (like defining 'good' as 'pleasure'), the question always remains open. For example, 'Is pleasure truly good?' This shows that moral terms cannot be fully captured by natural definitions.

How does the open question argument challenge ethical naturalism?

The open question argument challenges ethical naturalism by demonstrating that moral concepts resist definition through natural properties. It suggests that moral terms always leave room for further questioning, revealing that they are not reducible to natural facts.

How might one conclude that ethical statements are non-cognitivist based on Hume's arguments?

Hume's arguments suggest that ethical statements, when derived from factual propositions, are non-cognitivist because they do not express factual truths. Instead, they might represent emotional responses or subjective attitudes, rather than objective facts.

What does it mean to say that ethical statements cannot be derived through demonstrative reasoning alone?

Saying that ethical statements cannot be derived through demonstrative reasoning alone means that moral conclusions cannot be logically deduced from facts about the world. Instead, Hume suggests that moral judgments might require other forms of input, such as sentiments or feelings, beyond pure reason.

What is the implication of Hume's law on moral philosophy?

The implication of Hume's law on moral philosophy is that moral reasoning cannot rely solely on factual observations. It suggests that moral knowledge might not be derived from the natural world in the same way we derive knowledge of physical facts, and that moral reasoning may require different approaches, such as moral sentiments.