Talk:Ethical naturalism

Examination of definition

I removed this sentence from the "Examination of defition" section, because it appeared to contradict the definition given. "Non-reductive ethical naturalism holds that moral properties are not reducible to non-moral (i.e., natural) properties, but are supervenient upon those properties." Should there be two articles (definitions?)? One for reductive ethical naturalism and one for non-reductive? I don't know anything about the subject, so an expert should probably flesh out the article a little more. Chris 05:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:Moral naturalism (article redirected here)

So "moral naturalism" is just another way of saying "the strong survive, the weak are killed and eaten"?

I mean, nobody's actually eating anybody else, but basically, if I understand the article correctly, it is "moral" for somebody rich and powerful to abuse the poor, simply because they can (and do) get away with it? Am I reading this correctly? xxxyyyzzz 22:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe you are reading this article correctly. Either that or you commented before the modern version. Moral naturalism is merely a proposition that moral facts/values are reducible to properities of the natural world. This does not neccessarilly entail egoism or any other theory. Canadianism 17:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethical neutralism

There is a similar philosophical theory called ethical neutralism (or moral neutralism) which posits that progressive human knowledge is scientifically or philosophically unbiased and that it always serves the better good of those who seek it. Many post-modern philosophers have criticized this idea on the epistemological grounds that no knowledge is ever morally neutral, and so it should maybe be mentioned as part of the ongoing the debate on the cultural and ideological value of knowledge in society. ADM (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard this term "ethical neutralism", and what you describe doesn't sound particularly related to ethical naturalism, other than the names sounding something alike. If you have sources to cite, perhaps a new article is in order... --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   At this date ethical neutralism remains a red link, but Googling the phrase shows (besides this talk page being the first hit) that C.D. Broad used such a term, apparently moving G.E. Moore to at least comment on it.
   I got as far as continuing with

If we eventually get an article on it, it is relevant to this talk page's mission to note here that each articles will deserve a template:Confuse instance. Or perhaps it would be less disruptive for the accompanying clearly more vital article to have, in fact even in the absence of the "neut" one, to have a ...

when it struck me that 7 years is a long time to have already waited. I'm writing a stub, and then adding a Confuse Hatnote. Please pile on!
--Jerzy•t 22:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge from Science of morality

I have brought over a lot of relevant information from a related page - Science of Morality. Some of the information may still need rephrasing in this new context, however. Your constructive criticisms are welcome! -Tesseract2 (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss at Talk:Science of morality. Thanks!—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

edits

Pardon my accidental IP edits (I forgot to log in).-Tesseract2 (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sam Harris mountain image?

What exactly is the policy (if there is one) on topics such as this? There is an image of mountain peaks in the article and it has a caption totally unrelated except to the allegorical reference to mountain “peaks”. Is this kind of metaphorical imagery acceptable? Andrew Colvin • Talk 08:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sam Harris

Additionally, Sam Harris takes up too much of the content on the page, he is not the only naturalist, and probably not the most famous one, considering Aristotle, Philippa Foot, Anscombe, etc. (I think, I'm just a BA about to write a paper on the fact value distinction) 76.78.203.193 (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)ColeHeideman (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

   Well, of course that superstitious blunderer Aristotle, but do we even have articles on these people

(Philippa Foot, Anscombe, etc.) whom i, a fan of Rorty and Daniel Dennett, and one looking with respect twd Sam Harris,

have never even heard of? Well, i see that "yes" applies to all three. But your applying your research to improving the article would be much more influential than your anonymous complaint, and i look forward to that.
--Jerzy•t 21:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If you haven't heard of Philippa Foot and G.E.M Anscombe that reflects poorly on you, not on me, which seems to me to be what you are suggesting. At the very least it reflects poorly on whatever department you are studying at for not giving you a better grasp of the history of analytic philosophy. They are both extremely important names, and far more respected than Sam Harris. Philippa Foot and Elizabeth Anscombe essentially revitalized Virtue Theory. Foot is the creator of the Trolley problem. I'll try and improve the article over Thanksgiving break, so they are at least mentioned. That's probably all I will have time for as these authors aren't my main preoccupation as far as research goes. Even the stanford article explicitly mentions them: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/76.78.203.193 (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)76.78.203.193 (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)ColeHeideman (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)