Challenges to Ethical Naturalism

IS/OUGHT PROBLEM:

what IS the case and what OUGHT to be the case are different. (is=objective/ ought=subjective)

Hume argued that philosophers were arguing about non-moral facts and coming to moral conclusions, without showing reasoning or evidence.

EXAMPLE: Arsenic is poisonous so we ought not to consume it- this is correct

'...so it is morally wrong to consume it'- our logic becomes unstuck.

It is generally wrong if we fail to fulfill a moral obligation as our moral obligations tend to be what we consider to be of greater importance than other things we do. There is no fixed standard of morality, it is what we think we OUGHT to do.

Hume rejects the Naturalistic idea of 'objective moral facts' because he believes that what we morally ought to do is based on sentiment, particularly sympathy.

The reason why we say murder is wrong is that of our sympathy for the victim. There is no objective, moral basis for the statement;  it becomes true because of our goals and motivations.

Knowledge of facts with appropriate attitudes prompts action; knowledge of facts alone does not.

EXAMPLE:

'I believe the room is on fire, so i ought to leave'- The first part is factual. The missing part is my own motivation not to die. Ought-judgments are motivating, factual judgments are not. 

• It contradicts the assumption that our desires can't override what we morally ought to do; we don't always have time to think thus our desires override the morally-ought part.
• It contradicts the assumption that our personal goals can't override what we morally ought to do.
• It contradicts the assumption that we can be wrong about what morally ought to be in the case; presumes our attitude is morally correct.
• It contradicts the assumption that some moral goals are more reasonable than others.