Moore's Naturalism and the challenges to it

G.E Moore

An important intuitionist, had a book named Principia Ethica 1903 in which he expressed his main argument

Strengths of Moore's argument

Based on our own intuitionism - each person can use it Simple and easily recognisable as based on this theory we know goodness when we see it - applies to all humans Easy to understand e.g yellow analogy

Why did Moore reject Utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill?

Because for him good is a simple, unalaysable property, like a primary colour Right acts are those that produce the most good but he said that goodness cannot be identified with natural properties such as pleasure as they said.

Moore's main points

'One cannot deduce an ought from an is' 'The Open Question Argument'

Yellow Argument and counter

'We know what yellow is and can recognise it whenever it is seen, but we cannot actually define yellow. In the same way we know what good is but we cannot define it' Counter: Yellow like good is a simple idea On the other hand a horse is a complex idea that can be defined and reduced You can give a definition of a horse as it has many different qualities But when you reduce a horse to its simplest terms you can no longer define these terms

What position did GE Moore adopt?

A position of ethical non naturalism where he considers one can intuitively know if something is good through the use of reason. Goodness is a non-definable property, like the colour yellow. We know what 'yellow' is, and can recognize it whenever it is seen, but we cannot actually define yellow. In the same way we know what good means but we cannot define it. People still understand that good means 'good' - a simple idea which can't be broken down. There is debate over whether ethical non-naturalism is cognitive or not. Dr John Frye argue that it is cognitive as like the collor yellow, although we cannot explain it in words when we look at a yellow wall, we recognize it - which tells us about the nature of reality. Intuitionists claim that although the term 'good' is non definable there are objective moral truths - which human beings discern through the use of reason - a priori

Weaknesses of Moore's argument

Does not prove his point conclusively - he says you either agree with him or have not thought about it properly Too simplistic - more to good than social conditioning

One cannot deduce an ought from an is explanation

G.E Moore argued that the flaw in ethical naturalism ( a cognitive approach to ethics claiming that the term good can be proven through empirical assessment) i.e saying statements such as 'Trump is good' is no different from 'Trump is president', is that it commits the naturalistic fallacy I.e one cannot move from facts to values, or epistemology to ethics. The logical error ethical naturalism makes is that it confuses good with a natural or metaphysical property. What theories commit the naturalistic fallacy? DCT - God it the source of morality, so whatever God wills is good. Just because someone asserts that something is the case, it does not logically follow that it ought to be the case

Issues of ethical naturalism - too much freedom for the individual?

Giving the individual the right to accept their intuitions as the authority for moral behaviour may be seen as offering the individual too much freedom? It removes an objective foundation for human nature

The Overview of Moore's intuitionism

Good is indefinable There are objective moral truths We know these by intuition

Issues of ethical non naturalism - what if one is colour blind: good is evil and evil is good

In Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche famously argued that what is good may be evil and what is evil may be thought to be good. Thus, if an intuitionist were ethically colour blind what is conventionally thought to be virtue would be vice, and vice would be virtue. This may not be as uncommon as one might think; people do view life through different ethically colour-tinted spectacles; for example Christians virtues of humility and disobedience may be thought to be detrimental to the human spirit, individuality and the intuitive evolutionary need for self-assertion. The vice of pride, condemned by St Paul, may be regarded as a virtue, as otherwirse humanity will remain subservient. In such circumstances ethical non-naturalism is of little help

Moore's criticism of naturalism

Principa Ethica - moral judegements are based on infallible intuitive knowledge of good things Things that are intrinsically good cannot be analysed or defined Naturalists confuse the property of goodness with some other non moral property thst good things happen to possess Confusing moral judgements with factual judgements

The Open Question argument

The fallacious jump in the logic of ethical naturalism is explained further by GE Moore with his analysis of ethical statements and what is known as 'the open question' If ethical naturalism were true it would not make sense to ask open questions as the conclusion would have already been proven I.e George is a brother is a statement. The question 'Is George male?' is meaningless as the original contains the word male Yet ethical naturalism is not proven as an open question may be. A utilitarian may think war against terror provides greatest happiness for greatest number, but the question 'is it still good' is meaningful

Counter to Moore: FH Bradley

Wrote Ethical Studies in 1876, believed in a moral perspective determined from self-realisation and observing one's position in society. Said finding our place in community, realisation, duty and happiness, means we have found ourselves. Moore criticised him in saying that the attempt to define ethical language in naturalistic terms e.g good = pleasure, happiness, desire, approval, virtue etc is mistaken. Any theory which argues that the good life is identified with any natural property is guilty of the naturalistic fallacy which assumes that goodness is something which can be grasped by an act of direct observation.