Meta – Ethics Revision
Essay Structure – Take three theories, one paragraph for each, weigh them against
themselves and conclude that since the other two don’t make sense the last one is the only
option.
Ethical Naturalism
Key theory – moral truths can be proved, moral language is factual and ethical terms can be
defined using empirical knowledge and sense experience from the natural world. The belief
that goodness is outside ourselves comes from Plato and the world of the forms, but the
idea that we use the world around us to define it comes from Aristotle.
Main Scholar – FH Bradley – values are factual and they can be defined using natural
properties in the world.
Supported by scholars who believe you can define good :
Plato – form of the good
Bentham – Principle of Utility
Aquinas – Natural Law
Kant – Duty
Strengths of Naturalism :
• Reducing moral virtues to mere taste and opinion reduces their worth – If we base
our knowledge of moral statements on natural knowledge this gives us a solid
foundation and evidence to say whether something is right or wrong. Real world
application in the legal system.
• Peter Singer says that if ethical statements are factual and data driven people are
more likely to be altruistic and charitable. For example if people see images of
people starving in an advert they are more likely to donate money.
• A lack of definition of moral terms leads to moral nihilism. If we say that moral terms
cannot be defined we risk a state where nothing has any meaning.
Weaknesses of Naturalism:
• The value of moral statements is reduced to empirical statements. Surely the
statement ‘abortion is wrong’ carries more meaning than the statement ‘ mike is a
bachelor’.
• GE Moore - Naturalistic fallacy – we can have factual knowledge of ethical terms but
they cant be defined. There is a logical problem with using the natural world. You
cant define something that is not natural using natural terms.
• Good means different things to everyone. For example all the different scholars.
Essay Structure – Take three theories, one paragraph for each, weigh them against
themselves and conclude that since the other two don’t make sense the last one is the only
option.
Ethical Naturalism
Key theory – moral truths can be proved, moral language is factual and ethical terms can be
defined using empirical knowledge and sense experience from the natural world. The belief
that goodness is outside ourselves comes from Plato and the world of the forms, but the
idea that we use the world around us to define it comes from Aristotle.
Main Scholar – FH Bradley – values are factual and they can be defined using natural
properties in the world.
Supported by scholars who believe you can define good :
Plato – form of the good
Bentham – Principle of Utility
Aquinas – Natural Law
Kant – Duty
Strengths of Naturalism :
• Reducing moral virtues to mere taste and opinion reduces their worth – If we base
our knowledge of moral statements on natural knowledge this gives us a solid
foundation and evidence to say whether something is right or wrong. Real world
application in the legal system.
• Peter Singer says that if ethical statements are factual and data driven people are
more likely to be altruistic and charitable. For example if people see images of
people starving in an advert they are more likely to donate money.
• A lack of definition of moral terms leads to moral nihilism. If we say that moral terms
cannot be defined we risk a state where nothing has any meaning.
Weaknesses of Naturalism:
• The value of moral statements is reduced to empirical statements. Surely the
statement ‘abortion is wrong’ carries more meaning than the statement ‘ mike is a
bachelor’.
• GE Moore - Naturalistic fallacy – we can have factual knowledge of ethical terms but
they cant be defined. There is a logical problem with using the natural world. You
cant define something that is not natural using natural terms.
• Good means different things to everyone. For example all the different scholars.
