Exploring G.E Moore's Non-Naturalism: A Critical Analysis
Table of Contents:
- Introduction
- What is Non-Naturalism?
- GE Moore and Non-Naturalism
3.1 Moore's Open Question Argument
3.2 The Problem with Naturalism
- Moore's Intuitionist Theory
4.1 Indefinability of Moral Terms
4.2 Moral Intuition
- Criticisms of Non-Naturalism
5.1 Begging the Question in the Open Question Argument
5.2 Moral Disagreements and Dilemmas
5.3 Lack of Empirical Evidence for Moral Intuition
- Conclusion
- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Non-Naturalism in Ethics: A Critical Examination
1. Introduction
In the realm of philosophy, the study of ethics delves into the nature of morality and how we understand it. One prominent stance within ethical theory is non-naturalism, which challenges the notion that moral terms can be defined by natural language. This article aims to explore the concept of non-naturalism, focusing on the arguments put forth by GE Moore and his open question argument. Additionally, Moore's intuitionist theory will be examined, along with critical evaluations of non-naturalism. By the end of this article, readers will gain a comprehensive understanding of non-naturalism and its implications in ethics.
2. What is Non-Naturalism?
Non-naturalism is a branch of cognitive ethics that asserts moral language as being truth-apt, meaning that moral statements can be either true or false. It stands in opposition to naturalism, which argues that moral terms can be defined using natural terms. Non-naturalism claims that ethical terms cannot be reduced to natural terms and that moral truths cannot be found solely in natural properties. This branch of cognitive ethics recognizes the existence of an objective world of morality.
3. GE Moore and Non-Naturalism
3.1 Moore's Open Question Argument
One of the leading proponents of non-naturalism is GE Moore, who presented the open question argument to illustrate the fallacy of reducing moral properties to natural properties. Moore reasoned that when one attempts to define moral terms using natural terms, they commit a naturalistic fallacy. He used the example of defining "good" with the natural term "pleasure" and highlighted the open-ended nature of the question, "Is X which is an N really good?" Moore concluded that the predicate "good" cannot be synonymous with a naturalistic predicate, proving that naturalist moral realism is false.
3.2 The Problem with Naturalism
Moore's open question argument reveals the complications that arise when attempting to reduce moral properties to natural properties. If "good" is analytically equivalent to a natural property, it would be absurd to question whether this natural property is truly good. However, Moore demonstrated that such questions are always open-ended when defining moral properties. For instance, if "good" is synonymous with what one desires, the open question remains: "Is what I desire always good?" This challenge to naturalism emphasizes the inherent difficulty in defining moral terms using natural language.
4. Moore's Intuitionist Theory
4.1 Indefinability of Moral Terms
Moore expanded upon non-naturalism by asserting that moral terms, like "good," are indefinable. He drew a parallel between moral terms and the color yellow, explaining that just as yellow cannot be further defined, "good" is a simple term that cannot be broken down. It is intuitively recognized, and attempts to provide further definitions would be futile. This highlights the limitation of language in capturing the essence of morality.
4.2 Moral Intuition
Within his intuitionist theory, Moore posited that humans possess an innate moral intuition, enabling them to recognize what is morally good and morally wrong. This intuition operates on a level beyond language and definitions. It allows individuals to perceive moral values without the need for explicit definitions or reduction to natural terms. While Moore's theory suggests the existence of objective moral truths, it does not offer empirical evidence or justification for the claim.
5. Criticisms of Non-Naturalism
5.1 Begging the Question in the Open Question Argument
A critical examination of Moore's open question argument reveals a significant flaw - question begging. Moore assumes the conclusion of his argument within his premises, particularly in premise four. By claiming that it is an open question whether an N property is really good, Moore assumes that all natural properties cannot be analytically equivalent to moral properties. This logical inconsistency weakens the validity of the open question argument and raises doubts about its effectiveness in proving non-naturalism.
5.2 Moral Disagreements and Dilemmas
If moral intuition is universal and enables individuals to recognize objective moral truths, why do moral disagreements and dilemmas persist? The intuitionist theory fails to address the variations in moral perceptions among individuals. Nietzsche criticized Moore's analogy between morality and the color yellow, arguing that different individuals may perceive good differently. This suggests the potential existence of ethical color blindness, wherein people have divergent moral intuitions.
5.3 Lack of Empirical Evidence for Moral Intuition
Moore's intuitionist theory rests on the assumption of an innate moral intuition, but this claim lacks empirical evidence. The existence of such intuition is a metaphysical belief, rather than a substantiated fact. Relying on metaphysical claims to establish objective moral truths raises skepticism, as it does not provide tangible proof or a verifiable basis for accepting the existence of moral intuition.
6. Conclusion
Non-naturalism in ethics challenges the reduction of moral terms to natural language and asserts the existence of objective moral truths. GE Moore's open question argument and intuitionist theory serve as prominent contributions to the non-naturalist perspective. However, criticisms highlight logical flaws in the argument and the difficulties in reconciling moral disagreements and the lack of empirical evidence for moral intuition. Further exploration and critical inquiry are necessary to fully understand the complexities and implications of non-naturalism in the realm of ethics.
7. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q: Does non-naturalism deny the existence of morality?
A: No, non-naturalism recognizes the objective existence of morality but argues against defining it solely in natural terms.
Q: Can moral terms like "good" be defined?
A: According to GE Moore, moral terms are indefinable. They are simple terms that cannot be broken down or reduced further.
Q: What is the biggest criticism against Moore's open question argument?
A: The open question argument is often criticized for begging the question, as Moore assumes the conclusion within his premises, weakening its validity.
Q: Can everyone have the same moral intuition?
A: The intuitionist theory does not account for variations in moral perceptions among individuals, implying that moral intuitions may differ.
Q: Is there empirical evidence for moral intuition?
A: The existence of moral intuition lacks empirical evidence and is considered a metaphysical belief.
Resources:
