Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:32:49.154Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 10 - Ethical non-naturalism and experimental philosophy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2012

Susana Nuccetelli
Affiliation:
St Cloud State University, Minnesota
Gary Seay
Affiliation:
Medgar Evers College, CUNY
Get access

Summary

One thing – perhaps the main thing – that the classic non-naturalists wanted to protect was a specific epistemology. Say I am tempted to think that X is right because X maximizes pleasure and whatever maximizes pleasure is right. I need to reflect on cases such as these: (1) Say that X maximizes whatever is good, but involves breaking a promise. If I keep the promise, only slightly less total good will result. Should I perform X? (2) Say that worlds A and B have equal amounts of pleasure, but A has more knowledge, or more virtue, or a more just distribution of the pleasure. Do A and B have the same amount of value, or is there more value in A? Ross, who gives these examples, hopes that in (1) one thinks one should keep the promise, and in (2) one thinks there is more value in A. If one agrees with Ross, one does not think that whatever maximizes pleasure is right; the right is not simply a function of the good, and there are goods in addition to pleasure (Ross 1930: 34–35, 134–35, 138–40). The correct way to decide whether X is right is to elicit the intuitions of “the best people,” “thoughtful and well-educated people,” about thought experiments such as these, rather than for anyone to perform, exclusively, purely empirical work (Ross 1930: 41). The non-naturalists took naturalists to deny this.

My concern is what impact, if any, recent work stemming from the psychology and experimental philosophy literatures should have on this debate. Some of this work, especially from epistemology, is hostile to appeals to intuition, and there are parallel empirical findings in ethics that could justify similar hostility to the appeals to intuition prized by the non-naturalists.

Type
Chapter
Information
Ethical Naturalism
Current Debates
, pp. 194 - 210
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×