Naturalism (Edexcel A-Level Religious Studies): Revision Notes

Naturalism

What does it mean to say that something is good or bad?

Is it okay to say that something is right because it is a part of someone's culture even if it feels wrong outside of that culture? • Is this morally wrong, no matter what? • Is this just an expression of my emotions towards this? • Is this something that everyone should instinctively know is wrong?

                                                                                                                                          **Absolutism**: the view that morals are :highlight[fixed, unchanging truths] that everyone should always follow

Naturalism

The claim that the term 'good' describes an natural quality can be observed within the world and exists independently of human beings. Ethical naturalists hold that moral evil and goodness are objective absolute facts of the world, just like other facts. They are fixed and do not change. 2+2=4 2+2=4 It takes the Earth 365 days to orbit the sun It takes the Earth 365 days to orbit the sun At birth, a new-born panda is smaller than a mouse At birth, a new-born panda is smaller than a mouse Child marriage is wrong Child marriage is wrong

Types of naturalism

1. Hedonic naturalism
2. Utilitarianism

you can break down what is 'good' to: what creates happiness – a thing that is calculated/observed to cause happiness is therefore defined as 'good'.

Theological naturalism

Aquinas natural law:

• There are absolute objective facts about morality.
• We can observe this in society
• What reasoning would a hedonic naturalist have used to come to the conclusion: that helping people is good?
• What reasoning would a theological naturalist have used to come to the conclusion: that helping people is good?

Naturalism strengths

• Removes ambiguity from moral decision-making – how? • If people understood that moral statements were statements of fact, the world would be a better place. Why? Examples?

Naturalism Weaknesses: Hume's law

• You cannot go from an 'is' to an 'ought' • Missing a premise in our reasoning • When we see something that we think is wrong, the 'wrongness' comes from our sentiment, not from our observations'

John Searle

Moral language is a certain type of language that includes within it an understanding of obligation. E.g: Brian promised Sue that he would pay back the $100 she lent him. Brian therefore has an obligation, recognised in the idea of promising, to pay the money back. Therefore Brian ought to pay the money back. Therefore, you can move from an is to an ought without needing to justify why since the why is implied within the language itself

G.E Moore

Naturalistic fallacy: the error of assuming that "good" is the same thing as some other natural quality The open question argument: Naturalism stops us from being able to ask open questions about moral statements. Open questions are questions where the answer cannot be derived from the question itself E.g. 'Do you eat meat?' is an open question, but 'I know you're a vegan, but, do you eat meat?' is a closed one We should be able to ask open questions about ethics, but, naturalism stops us from being able to do so How does naturalism stop us from asking open questions about morality?

Philippa Foot: Rebuttal to Hume's Law & the naturalistic fallacy • Draws on Aristotle's idea that the natural world includes a 'good' way of doing things. Humans who act in consideration of certain virtues like honesty or promise-keeping can easily be observed to be doing so through their actions. Foot suggests that: There are absolute moral facts (e.g. working hard) as Aristotle has proven. We can observe them in people