Why 'natural' doesn't automatically mean 'good' in moral philosophy
In short: We often assume that because something exists in nature, it is inherently right or good. In philosophy, this shortcut is known as the naturalistic fallacy. By examining how we define morality, we can uncover whether our ethical values are based on objective facts or something deeper.
The concept of the naturalistic fallacy was famously articulated by the English philosopher G.E. Moore in his 1903 work, Principia Ethica. Moore argued against the attempt to define 'good' using only natural properties, such as pleasure. He believed that 'good' is a simple, unanalyzable quality. To test any proposed definition, Moore suggested the 'open-question argument': take a definition, like 'good means what leads to the greatest happiness,' and turn it into a question: 'Is what leads to the greatest happiness good?' If the answer is not obviously self-contradictory, then the definition fails to capture the full meaning of the word 'good.'
While Moore's argument was primarily about definitions, it shares a lineage with David Hume’s 'is-ought' problem. This problem highlights the difficulty of deriving a moral obligation (an ought) from a purely factual observation (an is). For example, just because people naturally behave in a certain way does not mean they ought to do so. Critics of the naturalistic fallacy argue that while natural properties might not define goodness, they can still serve as criteria for it. For instance, a utilitarian might use pleasure as a criterion to determine if an action is good, even if pleasure is not the definition of goodness itself.
The debate highlights a tension between different schools of thought. Intuitionists, who dominated British philosophy for 30 years following Moore's work, argued that ethical truths are apprehended through clear, calm reflection rather than logical derivation. However, even among intuitionists, there was no consensus on what these truths were. Some, like Sir David Ross, looked to the convictions of well-educated people as 'data,' while others, like Moore, found specific values like friendship and beauty to be self-evident. This lack of agreement eventually contributed to the decline of intuitionism as a dominant metaethical position.
Opens the Intellect+ feed with this card first. Swipe up for the next one.
Sources
- Summary by Intellect · source: Ethics - Moore, Naturalistic Fallacy | Britannica
- Also: Naturalistic fallacy
To cite this card, link to https://intellectplus.co.uk/app/health-naturalistic-fallacy.
How we source, check and correct cards: Editorial standards.
General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.
Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?
Related
More in Ethics · More in Health · Latest · A–Z · All topics
