The Naturalistic Fallacy: Define the term ‘yellow’ Define the term ‘horse’ What is the difference between these two terms? Is the term ‘good’ similar to ‘yellow’ or ‘horse’? How could this be a criticism of Naturalism?

The Naturalistic Fallacy: G. E. Moore’s criticism of ethical naturalism: G.E. Moore criticised ethical naturalism in his book Principia Ethica (1903). He stated that moral judgements are based on an infallible intuitive knowledge of good things. When we make moral decisions we just act in the way which brings about more of these good things. However ‘good’ cannot actually be defined as it is a ‘simple’ idea. If you were asked ‘what is good’ your answer would be ‘good is good’. There is nothing more to say than that. Moore makes a distinction between ‘simple’ ideas like good and yellow, and ‘complex’ ideas like ‘horse’ and ‘human’. Complex ideas can be reduced and defined whereas simple ideas cannot. Would would Moore think of a utilitarian or situation ethicists understanding of goodness?

The Is- Ought Gap: G.E. Moore develop further his criticism on naturalism using the writing of D. Hume: “In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark’d, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation,’tis necessary that it shou’d be observ’d and explain’d; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it … [I] am persuaded, that a small attention [to this point] wou’d subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceiv’d by reason.” In your pairs, try to deconstruct the meaning of each sentence. You will need to attempt to write out this passage using simple language.

Is- Ought Gap: G. E. Moore G. E. Moore, following Hume, maintains that you cannot use a non-moral premise to establish a moral conclusion. You can’t go from observing pleasure to saying that goodness is pleasure. Likewise, ‘good’, can’t be identified with a metaphysical entity such as God. Moore wrote that ‘everything is what it is and not another thing.’ The good is the good – not pleasure or happiness – and it can’t be broken down into pleasure or happiness or some other description. Moore believed that his ‘open question argument’ disproved naturalism. If a naturalist claims that goodness consists of things that lead to pleasure, we can then identify a thing that leads to pleasure and still ask the open question ‘But is it good?’ We can also say that a thing leads to pleasure but isn’t good. Moore concludes that this shows that naturalistic definitions can’t be correct.

Is- Ought Gap Read the information about either the Is  Ought OR Ought  IS Complete the relevant sections of your worksheet Be prepared to teach your section to your partner

Making an ‘is’ into an ‘ought’ According to Hume, what is the difference between an ‘is’ and an ‘ought? What is the difference between a descriptive statement and a value statement? Why can’t you go from one to another? What is Hume’s fork? How does Hume’s fork support the claim that it is not possible to move from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’? Hume’s fork - the observation that all statements are either matters of fact or relations of ideas It is not possible to move from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’ as ought statements cannot be known from empirical observation or analytically.

Making an ‘ought’ into an ‘is’ Why is it difficult to move from a moral value to a fact? Use the example of the oranges to illustrate this: Why is it hard to prescribe something as a moral action which you are obliged to perform? In your own words, explain Moore’s open question argument: