Meaningfulness of morality in naturalism

  • Thread starter bjrscj
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the issue of morality and how it relates to naturalism. The speaker is seeking help in understanding the validity of their concerns about naturalistic morality. They list four major issues, including the role of observation in determining morality, the connection between pleasure and survival, the imposition of majority will on the minority, and the idea of determinism in a naturalistic world. They argue that morality seems to go beyond observation and that if it is based on observation, it loses its traditional connotations. They are advised to follow the guidelines of referencing a published philosopher or researcher when starting a new topic on the Philosophy forum.
  • #1
bjrscj
I have been discussing the issue of morality with several naturalists, and we seem to have come to an impasse. I'd like some help breaking apart my issues to see what is valid and what is not. They'll be following along and can chime into clarify. I'll list a few of my major problems with naturalistic morality below. Feel free to expound on whichever ones stand out.

1. Naturalists believe in empiricism and the scientific method, and most generally shun a priori sorts of knowledge. A naturalist's morality can effectively get them towards a desired end, but how can that end be said to be the "better" end simply from observing nature? Naturalists can objectively and effectively reach a selected end, but what deemed which end is the "right" end? Isn't that like concluding that more gravity exists where there is more mass, therefore we should all desire to be more massive? Who said a stronger force of gravity is more desirous?

2. Even if a majority of people agree on an end from #1, can we really say anything more than that we observe a directly proportional relationship to pleasure and survival in people who agree with the majority? In a naturalistic world, how do we get past mere observation to honestly believing that people "should" follow the majority? "Should" here seems to only have meaning in the sense that you can do it if your desires align with it, yet most naturalists I meet think people are truly bound by the morality of the day.

3. Morality in naturalism seems to be based upon tendencies of human nature. When a serial killer arises and seeks pleasure in his own way, because he is anomalous, he is destroyed by the society. How is this an observation of society carrying out "justice" or what should be done, as opposed to the majority imposing their will on the minority? Morality, then, seems to just be a description of power assertion based on majority tendencies in a group.

4. If matter is all that exists, and we're a compilation of matter, we seem to be bound by the same laws as the rest of matter - reacting to stimuli. How can we meaningfully say others must follow society's morals, when we're all just naturally responding to our environment with no ability to do other than what our genes and circumstances determine?

TLDR: Morality seems to be beyond observation, which doesn't fit with naturalism. If it is based on observation, it loses the connotations most associate with it, as it becomes deterministic and power based rather than a measure of a static standard expected of all.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Welcome to the forum.

Please read both sets of rules at the top of the Philosophy forum which contain instructions for how to start a thread here.

You can restart your thread if you meet the guidelines posted, specifically you will need to add the following.

[1) When starting a new topic, you must reference a published philosopher or researcher who has worked on the topic. The idea is to focus the topic along the lines of a specific area of research or school of thought.[/quote]
 

Related to Meaningfulness of morality in naturalism

1. What is naturalism?

Naturalism is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that the natural world is the only reality and that all phenomena can be explained by natural causes and laws. It rejects the existence of any supernatural or divine entities or forces.

2. How does naturalism view morality?

Naturalism sees morality as a product of natural evolution and social norms. It suggests that moral values and principles are not objective truths but rather subjective human constructs that have emerged as a result of our biological and cultural development.

3. Can morality exist in a naturalistic worldview?

Yes, morality can still exist in a naturalistic worldview. While naturalism rejects the idea of an absolute moral code, it does not deny the existence of moral values and principles. These values and principles may vary among different societies and cultures, but they still serve as a guide for human behavior.

4. Is morality necessary for human survival in naturalism?

Some argue that morality is necessary for human survival in a naturalistic worldview because it helps maintain social order and cooperation. However, others argue that morality is not a necessary component for survival as it may have evolved as a byproduct of other evolutionary traits.

5. How can naturalism explain the existence of moral dilemmas?

Naturalism can explain the existence of moral dilemmas as a result of conflicting natural instincts and social norms. For example, our innate desire for self-preservation may conflict with societal expectations of altruism, leading to moral dilemmas. It also acknowledges that there may not always be a clear moral answer to every situation.

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
867
  • General Discussion
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
992
Replies
1
Views
964
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
10K
Back
Top