Unveiling G.E Moore's Non-Naturalism: The Open Question Argument & Intuitionism

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. What is Non-Naturalism?
3. The Open Question Argument
4. Moore's Intuitionist Theory
5. Criticisms of Non-Naturalism
6. Conclusion

Introduction

Welcome to Philosophy But, the channel where we delve into the depths of philosophical ideas and engage in lively debates. In this video, we will continue our exploration of metaethics by examining George Edward Moore's non-naturalism. We will delve into Moore's open question argument and his intuitionist theory to gain a deeper understanding of this philosophical perspective.

What is Non-Naturalism?

Non-naturalism is a branch of cognitive ethics that asserts that moral language is truth-apt and that moral statements are either true or false, just like statements of fact. In the realm of cognitive ethics, there are two main branches: naturalism and non-naturalism. Naturalism argues that moral terms can be defined using natural terms, such as pleasure. However, non-naturalism posits that ethical terms cannot be reduced to natural terms and that moral truths cannot be found in natural properties.

The Open Question Argument

One of the main proponents of non-naturalism is G.E. Moore, who argued against the reduction of moral terms to natural terms using his open question argument. This argument is based on the notion that attempting to define a moral property in terms of a natural property leads to a fallacy. Moore illustrated this by posing the question, "Is X, which is an N, really good?" If X represents something like eating fast food, which is pleasurable (the natural property N), then asking whether eating fast food is really good becomes a meaningless question. However, if we substitute N with any other natural property, the question remains open, indicating that goodness cannot be synonymous with any natural property.

Moore's Intuitionist Theory

In addition to the open question argument, Moore put forth his intuitionist theory to explain how we recognize moral goodness even without being able to define it. According to Moore, moral terms like "good" are simple and indefinable. He compared this to the color yellow – we cannot further break down or define the color yellow, but we can still recognize it as yellow. Similarly, goodness is an innate intuition inherent in humans. We have the ability to intuitively recognize what is morally good and what is morally wrong, without the need for further definition.

Criticisms of Non-Naturalism

While Moore presents compelling arguments for non-naturalism, there are valid criticisms of this theory. One such criticism is that the open question argument begs the question. By assuming that questioning the goodness of an N is always an open question, Moore does not provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. This is problematic as it weakens the logical validity of the argument. Additionally, the intuitionist theory faces challenges, as people often hold conflicting moral beliefs. If morality is objective and universally recognizable, why do we encounter moral dilemmas and disagreements?

Conclusion

In this video, we have explored George Edward Moore's non-naturalism, its foundations in the open question argument, and his intuitionist theory. While non-naturalism presents thought-provoking ideas about moral language and objectivity, it is not without its criticisms. The open question argument begs the question, and the intuitionist theory lacks empirical evidence. Nevertheless, non-naturalism continues to contribute to the ongoing discussion in metaethics.

Highlights

• Non-naturalism is a branch of cognitive ethics that asserts the existence of objective moral truths.
• The open question argument, proposed by G.E. Moore, challenges the reduction of moral terms to natural terms.
• Moore's intuitionist theory suggests that moral terms like "good" are indefinable, but can be recognized intuitively.
• Criticisms of non-naturalism include question-begging in the open question argument and the lack of empirical evidence for moral intuition.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can you provide examples of naturalistic and non-naturalistic ethical definitions? A: Naturalistic ethical definitions seek to define moral terms using natural terms. For example, defining "good" as what produces pleasure. On the other hand, non-naturalistic ethical definitions assert that moral terms cannot be reduced to natural terms. They argue that "good" cannot be defined but can only be recognized intuitively as an innate moral intuition.

Q: How does non-naturalism differ from moral relativism? A: Non-naturalism posits that moral statements can be objectively true or false, regardless of individual or cultural beliefs. It acknowledges the existence of moral truths that transcend subjective perspectives. On the other hand, moral relativism argues that moral judgments are subjective and vary between individuals or cultures. It denies the existence of objective moral truths.

Q: Can non-naturalism coexist with religious or spiritual beliefs? A: Yes, non-naturalism does not necessarily conflict with religious or spiritual beliefs. Non-naturalism is primarily concerned with the nature of moral language and the objectivity of moral truths. It does not prescribe any specific religious or spiritual framework but provides a philosophical perspective on ethics.

Q: Are there any real-world applications of non-naturalism? A: The philosophical ideas of non-naturalism can have implications in various fields, such as law, politics, and bioethics. By examining the nature of moral language and the objectivity of moral truths, non-naturalism provides a foundation for ethical discussions and decision-making in these arenas. However, the practical applications of non-naturalism may vary depending on the context and the ethical framework being employed.

Q: How does non-naturalism compare to other ethical theories, such as consequentialism or deontology? A: Non-naturalism focuses on the nature of moral language and the objectivity of moral truths but does not prescribe specific moral guidelines or principles like consequentialism or deontology. While consequentialism emphasizes the consequences of actions and deontology focuses on moral duties and rules, non-naturalism provides a metaethical framework within which different normative theories can operate. It offers insights into the foundations of ethical theories rather than dictating specific ethical guidelines.