ethics

Created by: joslyn
Created on: 09-06-21 12:26

Naturalism

• Developed from empiricism
We observe the world around us and create moral theories that fit our observations
• “good” exists and can be seen/described empirically
• Moral language is an objective fact; moral statements are objective as they can be meas

1 of 6

• Hume

o Statements are either analytic or synthetic – Hume’s fork
o Moral language is neither, so it has no inherent meaning and cannot be analysed the same way

2 of 6

Hume

 It is therefore subjective (take this as a challenge to the objective claims of naturalism)
o So the only way to understand moral statements is by experiencing good/bad
o This essentially is making an “is” from an “ought”, which leads to the naturalisti

3 of 6

Hume

• Naturalistic fallacy – challenge to naturalism
o Naturalism and Hume derives an ‘ought’ (a moral judgement) from an ‘is’ (a fact)
 Making an ethical judgement factual

4 of 6

o G.E. Moore

this is a fallacy as “to define an ethical judgement as a statement of fact is an error”
Ethical statements can’t be proved with reference to facts

5 of 6

o Hume

attempting to derive an “ought” from an “is” is illogical as values are applied to facts, not discovered among them
In light of this, Hume is not doing this with his approach to naturalism; instead he is saying that moral language is subjective an and ex

6 of 6

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

o Statements are either analytic or synthetic – Hume’s fork
o Moral language is neither, so it has no inherent meaning and cannot be analysed the same way

Back

• Hume

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

• Naturalistic fallacy – challenge to naturalism
o Naturalism and Hume derives an ‘ought’ (a moral judgement) from an ‘is’ (a fact)
 Making an ethical judgement factual

Back

Card 5

Front

this is a fallacy as “to define an ethical judgement as a statement of fact is an error”
Ethical statements can’t be proved with reference to facts

Back

View more cards

Get Revising

ethics