Ethical Non-Naturalism Exam Questions

• cognitive moral realism
• intuitionism (consequentialist + deontological)
• real moral properties exist but not natural properties that can't be analysed + only known through intuition
• key thinkers: Moore, Prichard, Ross

• moral properties may be correlated with natural properties (i.e happiness) but not identical
• moral properties unanalysable i.e like colours (which can be somewhat defined)
• moral properties cannot be investigated empirically + to identify them with natural properties is to commit naturalistic fallacy

P1 - "is pleasure good?" is an open question bc yes + no are possible answers
P2 - "is pleasure pleasure?" is not an open question
C - goodness + other moral properties cannot be the same as any other property

CRITICISM

P1 - "is water H2O? is an open question
P2 - "is water water?" isn't
P3 - water is H2O
P4 - concepts are different but properties aren't
C - goodness + happiness could be different concepts but same properties

• if moral properties aren't natural properties, how do we learn about them?
• Moore:

P1 - "pleasure is good" is an intuition

P2 - we cannot prove this but we know it to be true by rational intuition

P3 - not analytically true or established by empirical investigation

C - moral properties are synthetic a priori

• Ross: mental maturation/attention allows us to consider a proposition enough and it becomes self-evident without proof/evidence beyond itself

1) doesn't tell us how morality is related to natural facts (reason always needs to be given judgements) ∴ how can we know why hurting someone makes actions wrong?

2) doesn't explain moral knowledge + moral disagreement

RESPONSE

• if it's self-evident that being part of flourishing life makes something good, no further reason needed

CRITICISM

• if not, more reasons needed

• moral judgements express truths so self-evident we "just know" them without justification
• moral worth determined by good effects
• we know what is good through rational ability to discriminate intuitively
• Moore: "goods may all be said to consist in the love of beautiful things or of good persons"

CRITICISM

• MacIntyre: what Moore calls good seems to be things intellectuals already think are good, not a proof
• what if intuitions clash?

• if moral worth lies in what is right > good, value lies in actions > consequences
• Prichard: duty/obligation cannot be analysed; we cannot prove why something is duty but we recognise feeling of obligation intuitively
• duty is duty - cannot be analysed further
• obligations self-evident in that we intuitively know what to do in different situations

• disagreement with Moore: we have intuitions about what is right
• disagreement with Prichard: intuitions about obligations are self-evident in indiv. situations
• we intuitively know general principles about obligations that are then applied to indiv. situations (duties will give way to others if conflict)

• Warnock:
• does appeal to intuitionism answer question of what goodness is? (no explanation of difference between natural + non-natural properties
• how do natural facts contribute to moral thinking?
• how do we know things through intuition?
• how do moral statements motivate us?