Naturalism (AQA A-Level Religious Studies): Revision Notes
Naturalism
Introduction to meta-ethical theories
Before exploring naturalism in detail, it helps to understand where it fits within the broader landscape of meta-ethical theories. Meta-ethics examines the nature of moral language and moral claims themselves, rather than specific moral rules.
Meta-ethical theories divide into two main categories:
Cognitivist theories hold that ethical values are factual and can be known objectively. These divide further into:
- Ethical naturalism (e.g. Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, Natural Moral Law, Situation Ethics)
- Ethical non-naturalism (e.g. Intuitionism, Divine Command Theory)
Non-cognitivist theories hold that ethical values are not factual but express subjective attitudes or emotions (e.g. Emotivism, Prescriptivism).
Divine Command Theory serves as an example of non-naturalism because it locates the source of goodness not in nature but in a supernatural being (God, who is literally 'above nature'). This contrasts sharply with naturalist theories, which ground morality in observable features of the natural world or human nature.
What is ethical naturalism?
Ethical naturalism is the meta-ethical view that morality is defined by facts about nature or human nature.
Naturalism holds that moral values can be described using natural properties such as love, happiness or well-being. On this view, moral values are objective features of the universe - they exist independently of our personal opinions and can be discovered and understood through observation.
Key characteristics of naturalism
Naturalism is grounded in facts about nature or human nature. Several important features define this approach:
-
Realist position: Naturalist theories are realist because they claim moral facts exist objectively in the world, just as scientific facts do.
-
Observable basis: If you can look at the world and human behaviour and deduce right and wrong from them (whether through social, psychological or evolutionary observation), you are adopting a naturalist position.
-
Natural properties: Different naturalist theories identify 'the good' in different sets of natural facts:
- Utilitarians see the good in facts about pleasure and pain, happiness and misery
- Virtue ethicists see the good in facts about eudaimonia (complete well-being)
- Natural Moral Law theorists see the good in following one's true essence and natural purpose
- Situation Ethics sees the good in facts about agape-love
-
Intrinsic good: Naturalist theories often identify something as having intrinsic good - value 'in itself' that is self-evident. For example, Utilitarians consider pleasure intrinsically good.
How naturalism works in practice
Naturalist ethical systems typically operate by establishing rules based on natural facts. People follow these rules (such as "Do the most loving thing" or "Seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number") and display appropriate character traits in their behaviour. Those who comply with these rules are described as morally good.
Naturalists argue that grounding ethics in facts about the world is vitally important. Without objective ethical facts, we would have no real justification for our actions. From this perspective, a naturalist approach is essential for the survival and well-being of life on Earth.
Utilitarianism as ethical naturalism
Utilitarianism provides the clearest example of ethical naturalism in practice. It demonstrates how moral values can be grounded entirely in observable, natural facts about human experience.
Jeremy Bentham's approach
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) founded Utilitarianism and argued for the greatest happiness for the greatest number. His approach starts with what he considers a basic, observable feature of human life:
Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.
This statement is rich in meta-ethical significance:
Pain and pleasure as natural facts: Bentham identifies pain and pleasure not merely as personal experiences but as fundamental natural properties that govern human behaviour. These are observable, measurable facts about human nature.
Both descriptive and normative: Pain and pleasure determine both what actually motivates us (descriptive ethics) and what ought to motivate us (normative ethics). Bentham argues that we can observe the relationship between these sensations and human action as cause and effect.
Intrinsic good and evil: For Bentham, pleasure (or happiness) is the one intrinsic good - it is good in itself, not because it produces something else of value. Likewise, pain or unhappiness is the one intrinsic evil.
From observation to obligation: Since we observe that pain and pleasure rule humankind, and we ourselves seek pleasure and avoid pain, it is a straightforward step to see promoting pleasure and avoiding pain as determining moral obligation. In any moral choice, we should act to seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
Worked Example: The Hedonic Calculus in Action
Bentham developed the hedonic calculus to measure and compare pleasures objectively using seven criteria:
- Intensity - How strong is the pleasure?
- Duration - How long does it last?
- Certainty - How sure are we it will occur?
- Proximity - How soon will it happen?
- Productiveness - Will it lead to more pleasure?
- Purity - Is it mixed with pain?
- Extent - How many people are affected?
We instinctively understand, for example, that a pleasure available here and now motivates us more strongly than a distant future possibility.
Equality of pleasures: Bentham argued that it does not matter whether pleasure comes from a simple game or sophisticated cultural pursuits - all pleasures are equally measurable, and each individual's pleasure counts equally.
Consequentialism: Utilitarianism exemplifies consequentialist ethics - the moral value of an action is determined by its anticipated results. To decide whether to perform an action, we predict its consequences, compare them with the consequences of not acting, and choose the option likely to maximise pleasure and minimise pain.
John Stuart Mill's Rule Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill (1806-73) refined Bentham's theory in important ways whilst maintaining its naturalist foundation.
Higher and lower pleasures: Mill rejected Bentham's view that all pleasures are equal and measurable in the same way. Instead, he distinguished between 'higher' cultural and intellectual pleasures and 'lower' physical ones. Higher pleasures should be preferred even if they provide less immediate gratification. This led to his famous claim that "it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."
Despite this modification, Mill remained an ethical naturalist. He described happiness and goodness in terms of quality of life rather than quantity of pleasure. This quality is based on a view about the relative importance of different human attributes - physical, social, cultural and intellectual. For Mill, Utilitarianism concerns the fair and just distribution of these natural benefits.
The importance of moral rules: Mill's most significant contribution was introducing the role of general moral principles alongside consideration of individual acts. He argued that many moral rules (such as not stealing, lying or murdering) developed naturally because societies found these principles produced beneficial effects - a balance of pleasure over pain.
For example, if everyone decided whether to tell the truth in each situation as it arose, the result could be chaos. The principle of truth-telling is important for general trust in society. Therefore, in most cases, telling the truth is right because it supports a principle that offers the greatest happiness to the greatest number.
Balance, not opposition: Act Utilitarianism (Bentham's version) and Rule Utilitarianism are not necessarily opposed. In most situations, supporting generally beneficial rules maximises benefit. However, few would argue for following a rule even when immediate consequences are harmful. Mill offered balance rather than an alternative - moral rules should generally be followed, but when rules conflict, people should return to the primary principle of utility.
Strengths of ethical naturalism
Ethical naturalism offers several significant advantages as a meta-ethical theory:
Factual basis: Ethical propositions are true because they are factual. They 'reduce to' non-ethical properties about the world, such as happiness, love and well-being. These facts are grounded in observable features of nature or human nature, giving morality a solid empirical foundation.
Objectivity: Right and wrong exist objectively in the world outside ourselves. If objective moral reality exists, we can know whether we are acting rightly or wrongly. This provides moral certainty and justification for our actions.
Clear guidance: Ethical propositions provide solid guidelines and rules to follow. Rule Utilitarianism, for example, offers clear moral principles that help navigate ethical decisions.
Accountability: We can judge people's behaviour by their compliance with moral rules. If someone breaks the rules, this provides justification for punishment or correction.
Practical application: Most people follow some form of naturalist theory in practice. Many principles of law and politics in the UK are broadly utilitarian in character, demonstrating the practical applicability of naturalist ethics.
Survival and well-being: A naturalist perspective may be crucial for the survival and well-being of life on Earth, as it provides real justification for our moral actions based on observable consequences.
Weaknesses of ethical naturalism
Despite its strengths, ethical naturalism faces serious philosophical challenges:
Non-cognitivist objections
The claim that ethical propositions are factual does not convince ethical non-cognitivists, who argue that moral propositions are fundamentally different from factual statements.
Ayer's challenge: A.J. Ayer argued that statements which cannot be verified or falsified are meaningless. Consider the naturalist claim "Murder is wrong." According to Ayer, this cannot be verified or falsified because people who disapprove of murder will accept it whilst those who do not mind murder will reject it. There is no way to resolve this dispute by appealing to facts or evidence.
Emotivism: For emotivists like Ayer, moral statements merely express approval or disapproval. They reduce to subjective feelings rather than objective facts.
Implications: If non-cognitivists are correct, morality is subjective rather than objective. Morality becomes an internal feeling, not something objectively existing in the world. Moral rules and guidelines become matters of convention, as does punishment for non-compliance. Rules exist simply because enough people agree to make and enforce them.
The naturalistic fallacy
G.E. Moore identified what he considered a fundamental error in all naturalist theories - the naturalistic fallacy. This is the mistake of trying to define the concept 'good' in terms of natural properties such as 'pleasant' or 'desirable'.
The is-ought problem: Moore argued it is impossible to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. We cannot validly move from:
- "Pleasure is good" (a factual claim) to
- "We ought to seek pleasure" (a moral claim)
This means we cannot derive moral values from facts alone. Something is missing in the reasoning between factual observations and moral conclusions.
Worked Example: The Is-Ought Problem
Consider these two arguments:
- She is old and lonely (fact) → You ought to help her (moral value)
- She is old and lonely (fact) → You ought to euthanise her (moral value)
If ethical values are simply facts (as naturalism claims), we should not be able to derive two different moral values from the same fact. Yet we clearly can, which suggests something is wrong with naturalism.
Direct challenge to Utilitarianism: If Moore is correct, there is a fundamental problem with Utilitarianism. Bentham's theory says "pleasure is good" and "we ought to seek pleasure," but this commits the naturalistic fallacy by deriving moral obligation from natural facts.
Moore's Open Question argument
Moore developed the 'Open Question' argument to demonstrate that good is indefinable in naturalistic terms.
How it works: A utilitarian defines any action maximising pleasure over pain as 'good'. If you ask a utilitarian, "This action maximises utility, but is it good?", that should be a closed question requiring only "Yes" as an answer, because 'maximising utility' is how they define good.
However, according to Moore, such questions always remain 'open'. We can always meaningfully ask: "But is it good to bring about more pleasure than pain?" This question makes perfect sense, suggesting that 'good' means something more than or different from 'maximising pleasure'.
Universal application: Moore argued this objection applies equally to all naturalist definitions of good. Any attempt to define good in natural terms remains vulnerable to the Open Question argument.
Strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism
The strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism broadly mirror those of ethical naturalism, with some specific additions:
Strengths
Factual foundation: Utilitarianism grounds morality in observable facts about pain and pleasure, providing an empirical basis for ethics.
Clear methodology: Utilitarians have specific guidelines and rules. Bentham's hedonic calculus measures pleasure by intensity, duration, certainty, proximity, productiveness, purity and extent, offering a systematic approach to moral decision-making.
Measurable morality: The theory provides a way of measuring people's moral worth based on whether they seek to maximise happiness and minimise pain.
Practical application: Utilitarianism is a highly practical system. UK politics and law are broadly utilitarian in character, demonstrating its real-world applicability.
Universal appeal: If you ask people what they want from life, most will say happiness. Utilitarianism aligns with this fundamental human desire.
Weaknesses
Defining happiness: The concept of 'happiness' varies significantly between people, making it impossible to define precisely. Some people derive pleasure from inflicting pain on others, which cannot reasonably be called 'good' for the majority.
Predicting consequences: Like all consequentialist theories, Utilitarianism requires us to predict future outcomes. However, we can never be certain of the consequences of our actions. Any decision we make might turn out to maximise pain rather than pleasure.
Tyranny of the majority: The principle of 'the greatest good for the greatest number' assumes that majority interests should prevail. However, minorities are often right on moral issues. The principle effectively ignores minority rights, which many people find ethically problematic.
The naturalistic fallacy: Moore's objections suggest something is fundamentally wrong with all naturalist ethical theories, including Utilitarianism. They all appear to commit the naturalistic fallacy by deriving moral obligations from natural facts.
Exam guidance
When discussing naturalism in exam answers:
Exam Tips:
-
Clearly distinguish between naturalism and non-naturalism using the criterion of whether morality is grounded in natural or supernatural properties.
-
Use Utilitarianism as your primary detailed example of naturalism, but briefly reference other naturalist theories (Virtue Ethics, Natural Moral Law, Situation Ethics) to show breadth of understanding.
-
Explain the naturalistic fallacy carefully, using clear examples to illustrate the is-ought problem. Avoid simply stating that "you can't derive ought from is" without explaining why this matters.
-
When evaluating, consider both sides: the strengths of having objective moral facts versus the philosophical problems Moore identified.
-
Link naturalism to cognitivism - naturalists believe moral statements are factual claims that can be true or false.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
Ethical naturalism holds that moral values can be described using natural properties (like happiness or love) that exist objectively in the world.
-
Utilitarianism is the primary example of naturalism, grounding morality in observable facts about pleasure and pain, with Bentham focusing on maximising happiness and Mill introducing moral rules.
-
Strengths of naturalism include providing objective moral facts, clear guidelines, and practical applications in law and politics.
-
The naturalistic fallacy (Moore's key criticism) argues that you cannot derive moral values ('ought') from natural facts ('is'), challenging the fundamental premise of all naturalist theories.
-
Exam tip: Always support claims about naturalism with specific examples from Utilitarianism, clearly explaining how pleasure and pain function as natural properties that ground moral judgements.