WJEC/Eduqas RS for A2/Yr2: Religion and Ethics (DRAFT)

T1 Ethical Thought

Challenges to Naturalism There have been many challenges to Naturalism as an adequate explanation for the nature of ethics. The challenges are not restricted to those listed in this part of the Specification, as challenges also include alternative theories that have been proposed, such as Intuitionism and Emotivism. Indeed, as this theme progresses you will see how each theory interacts and responds to another with challenges. In Possibly the most famous objection to Naturalism is that in maintaining that ethical propositions can be identified from natural phenomena, this then reduces ethical propositions to observational or descriptive meaning or a mere explanation of what is happening. For example, when a person gives money freely to another who is less fortunate, we can see that it has brought more comfort to the life of the less fortunate and had no real material detriment for the giver. However, to draw from this a conclusion that ‘it is good for the more fortunate person to give money to a less fortunate person’ has nothing at all to do with the actual actions. A new layer of knowledge has been introduced that is not part of the original state of play. This new layer, according to critics of Naturalism, is NOT part of the actions but something quite separate. Logically, one cannot draw out from the argument an element that was not included in the first place. That is, to say what is happening does not logically lead to the conclusion of what ought to happen. The observation was first put forward by David Hume and is sometimes referred to as Hume’s Law or Hume’s Guillotine and states that it is not logical to derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. Hume writes: ‘In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, 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 surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations, 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, it is necessary that it should be observed and explained; 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.’ In terms of moral propositions, Hume’s view is debated and is related to another one of his principles, often referred to as Hume’s Fork (see diagram). This sees the principles of a priori knowledge (conceptual and prior to experience) and a posteriori knowledge (relating to experience) as completely separate types of knowledge, and just as the prongs on a fork cannot converge, neither can the types of knowledge. For Hume, a moral proposition is neither stating a propositional, that is, an a posteriori empirical ‘fact’, nor is it an a priori truth and so does not really belong to the world of logic or empiricism; such a statement is a statement of value or judgement that cannot be deduced logically or demonstrated empirically from a series of events. The philosophers Bertrand Russell and Alfred Ayer made Hume’s Fork a basis for further development of their own empiricist philosophies, and especially in the case of Ayer, had a marked influence on their moral philosophy. terms of Naturalism itself, immediately there are three. Hume’s Law (the is-ought problem)

Specification content Challenges: Hume’s Law (the is-ought problem); Moore’s Naturalistic Fallacy (moral language is indefinable); the Open Question Argument (moral facts cannot be reduced to natural properties). Key terms Hume’s Fork: sees the principles of a priori knowledge (conceptual and prior to experience) and a posteriori knowledge (relating to experience) as completely separate types of knowledge Hume’s Law: that an ‘ought’ cannot be derived from an ‘is’ Key quote Naturalism in ethics, like attempts to square the circle and to ‘justify induction’, will constantly recur so long as there are people who have not understood the fallacy involved. (R. M. Hare) Key quote Naturalism provides a view from the outside, and from that perspective, it provides all sorts of interesting information. But it misses something that can be experienced only from the inside, namely the normative force of the reasoning. (Rachels)

DRAFT

HUME’S FORK

RELATION OF IDEAS

MATTERS OF FACT

A posteriori

A priori

Synthetic

Analytic

Inductive

Deduction

Contingent

Necessary

19