Question

The provided text discusses a distinction made by Shook (2015) between ethical naturalism and moral naturalism. According to Shook, moral naturalism is distinct from both ethical naturalism and moral realism. Ethics, in this context, refers to the philosophical domain dealing with meta-level issues about determining the meanings and applicability of moral norms, methods for judging moral problems, and concerns about establishing better or correct moralities. Ethical naturalism goes further than moral naturalism by claiming that these meta-level issues should be answered by empirical sciences.

However, there seems to be confusion as the terms ethical naturalism and moral naturalism are often used interchangeably in various sources. For example, Wikipedia defines ethical naturalism as a meta-ethical view that is synonymous with moral naturalism or naturalistic cognitivistic definism. The distinction between ethics and morals is also discussed, with varying interpretations in different philosophical contexts.

In essence, the text highlights the ambiguity and variability in the use of these terms within the field of philosophy, urging readers to focus more on the underlying philosophical views rather than the specific labels attached to them.
In the context of the discussed distinction between ethical naturalism and moral naturalism, which statement accurately reflects the views presented?

A. Ethical naturalism and moral naturalism are synonymous, representing the same meta-ethical perspective.

B. Ethical naturalism emphasizes personal standards of behavior, while moral naturalism focuses on community standards.

C. Moral naturalism, according to Shook, includes ethical naturalism and moral realism within its scope.

D. The term ethical naturalism appears frequently in both the SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and Britannica articles, confirming its widespread use in philosophy.

Answer 1

Shook distinguishes ethical naturalism from moral naturalism, clarifying that they are not synonymous. Ethical naturalism focuses on empirical sciences to define moral norms, unlike moral naturalism. None of the provided statements correctly reflect Shook's views on the relationship between these terms.

Step-by-step explanation:

The confusion in using terms like ethical naturalism and moral naturalism represents a broader philosophical discussion about the foundation of moral values and norms. Philippa Foot's work on ethical naturalism focuses on human flourishing and virtues as they relate to telos (purpose), suggesting that our understanding of goodness should be empirically based. This idea contrasts with moral realism, which posits that moral values have an objective basis. Moral relativism and anti-realism challenge this by suggesting that morals are subjective and culturally relative. The discussion presented clarifies that ethical naturalism is distinct from moral naturalism in suggesting empirical sciences should answer meta-level issues in ethics.

Based on Shook's distinction and the philosophies mentioned, one can conclude that ethical naturalism and moral naturalism are not synonymous, as ethical naturalism relies on empirical sciences for defining moral norms. Therefore, statement A is incorrect because they represent different aspects of meta-ethical perspectives. Statement B mischaracterizes the discussion which deals with metaethical stances, not personal versus community standards. Statement C is incorrect as Shook differentiates moral naturalism from ethical naturalism and moral realism. Statement D brings up the frequency of use in encyclopedias but does not address Shook's specific views.