Final Report: Bailey Enoch

Moral naturalism is the belief that moral facts and natural facts are the same entity. Moral facts are something that can be proven or disproven much like theories in science. This coincides with a more objective view consisting of a right or wrong answer so to speak. It aims to orderly unify the world and its anomalies through scientific facts. Every moral naturalist would accept the statement that “moral facts are natural facts,” although their definition of that statement may be different. Moral naturalism is a branch of the naturalistic philosophical approach. An ancient Greek philosopher named Thales has been coined as the “father of naturalism.” He was among the first philosophers that seeked to explain the world through a naturalistic approach, rather than by mythical theories involving Greek gods. The ideology of naturalism accepts that human individuality can be recognized while maintaining a perception of ourselves as purely natural beings who can be clarified using traditional scientific methodology. Progression in science has allowed for the expansion of this philosophy due to the advancement of techniques to gain accurate information. This allows facts to be defined by science rather than feelings. Phillipa Foot took a more naturalistic position in her earlier philosophical work by opposing the idea that morals and facts are based upon emotions. Her works “Moral Beliefs” and “Moral Arguments” were instrumental in contending the idea that there wasn’t a possibility of moral judgement being absolutely true or false.

Charles Darwin was another advocate for naturalism and provided scientific evidence that was monumental to philosophy. His work Origin of Species was a turning point in the biological realm in regards to naturalism. He related all species in the ecological world, despite their diversities, to a singular-celled predecessor that underwent random mutation. Darwin's theory related life science to the remainder of natural sciences which eliminated the need to pose supernatural explanations to justify the order and complexity of nature. This alternative view to traditional philosophy was deemed as a threat. In response to the discovery of biological natural selection, many were afraid that this would cause opposition to religion.

This poses the question that, if you are in any way religious, are you supposed to reject naturalistic morals and facts? Naturalism and religiosity both exemplify a gratitude for human nature and its existence. Although, religion takes the route of using supernatural explanation for the unknown out of fear of what the repercussions for rejecting it would entail for their current lives and the afterlife. Does religiosity call for turning a blind eye to scientifically proven facts in relation to evolution? A true naturalist is not focused on the abstract ideology that concerns the universe and its existence. They are aware that nature has not stagnantly been in the condition that it is in now, and that evolutionary processes were required for human nature to exist as it currently does. 

References

http://naturalism.org/worldview-naturalism/history-of-naturalism

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philippa-foot/#NatuGood

Comment links 

https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2020/05/john-locke-shaper-of-our-world.html?showComment=1588707138289#c964822212226771758

https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2020/05/so-whats-next.html?showComment=1588707883977#c3149580402365062799

Runs: 27 before remote learning. Runs after remote learning: 8