Metaethical Naturalism Flashcards
(9 cards)
What does ‘natural’ in ‘naturalism’ mean? What are the requirements for “natural”?
requirements for “natural”:
1. observable
2. required to explain what we observe
What’s the big difference between non-naturalism and naturalism?
naturalism: Talking about morality is talking about something that exists in the world. Reductionist theory—reduces moral properties to non-moral (natural) properties/facts.
non-naturalism:. Talking about morality is talking about morality. Non reductionist theory.
What’s reductionism? what theories besides naturalism are reductionist?
you can break complex philosophical ideas into smaller, more simple, fundamental components
relativism is reductionist as well!
Differentiate sense from reference
Meaning (sense): the idea or symbol that we use to represent an object, usually a putative description of it
reference: the object that is indicated by or corresponds to the representation
Why prefer naturalism?
captures the advantages of naturalism: some people think the naturalistic worldview is the best world view. Advantages of a scientific worldview.
captures the advantages of cognitivism: no semantic/disagreement/frege geach problems—at least no problems with moral disagreement. Moral thought is cognitive.
vindicate common sense thinking about morality
we think there are moral properties that things are right/wrong/good/bad
we think natural properties supervene on moral properties
What is simple/analytical naturalism?
Simpler (analytic) naturalism: Moral terms mean the same thing as natural terms. Each moral property is reducible to some other (single) natural property
What’s the open question argument’s objection to the SEMANTIC thesis?
P1: If the term for natural property ‘X’ means the same thing as the term for evaluative property ‘Y’ then whether X is Y should seem like a closed question
i.e.: y = goodness, x = happiness → this should be the exact same thing and they are synonyms, thus they are closed questions
P2: But whether natural property X is equal to evaluative property y seems like an open question
so it’s not settled analytically (by just appealing to the meaning of the term)
C: the word for natural property ‘X’ cannot mean the same thing as the word for evaluative property ‘Y’
this rejects the simple semantic thesis
we are only rejecting the SEMANTIC thesis here, saying that X does not equal Y
what is the open question argument’s objection to the METAPHYSICAL thesis?
P4: if the word for natural property ‘X’ does not mean the same thing as the word for evaluative property ‘Y’ then no evaluative property Y is reducible to any natural property X
C2: no evaluative property Y is reducible to any natural property X
aka, moral beliefs (evaluative properties) can’t be reduced to natural beliefs
this rejects the METAPHYSICAL thesis
what is sophisticated/synthetic naturalism?
Sophisticated (synthetic) naturalism: distinguish between two senses of meaning. Strict meaning and reference
moral terms do not strictly mean the same thing as natural terms. When I say something is right, I am not thinking that the property I am referring to is a natural property
but the property I am referring to is or consists in natural property
EX: clark kent versus superman
