Final answer:
Increasingly, the existence of objective morality is questioned in philosophy due to the rise of naturalism. Moral skeptics lean on naturalism to argue against moral realism by emphasizing subjectivity in ethics. Moral realists counter by suggesting that moral debates, much like scientific ones, can help uncover objective moral truths.
Step-by-step explanation:
The notion that is increasingly being called into question in philosophy as a result of the cultural dominance of the worldview of naturalism is A) The existence of objective morality. Naturalism, often associated with the scientific viewpoint that all phenomena can be explained by natural causes and laws, challenges the concept of moral realism, which asserts that morality is objective and not subjective. The focus on empirical evidence and validation through the scientific method seen in naturalism has led to a questioning of whether moral truths exist independently of human opinion or cultural context, as argued by moral realists.
Moral skeptics and proponents of moral relativism capitalize on the naturalistic viewpoint to argue against the objectivity of morals, suggesting that moral claims are not about factual matters but are rather reflections of individual or cultural perspectives. Ethical naturalism tries to bridge the gap by claiming that good and bad can be understood through natural facts and thus are objective; however, it also encounters the issue known as the "naturalistic fallacy", which criticizes the derivation of moral values directly from natural facts.
Moreover, persistent moral debates do not conclusively indicate subjectivity in morality. Just like scientific fields undergo rigorous debate to arrive at truth, moral realism advocates believe that moral discourse can similarly lead to objective moral understanding, even if consensus is not currently achieved.