نقد نظریه جرج مور درباره ناطبیعتگرایی اخلاقی
Akhlāq-i zīstī i.e., Bioethics Journal,
Vol. 7 No. 26 (1396),
18 June 2018
,
Page 31-41
https://doi.org/10.22037/bioeth.v7i26.17292
Abstract
Background and Aim: One of the most important ideas about the analysis of moral concepts and propositions is Non-naturalistic theory. This study aimed to analysis and criticize of the George Moore's Theory on Moral Non-Naturalism.
Materials and Methods: In this analytical research, after analyzing the basic concepts, the George Moore's Theory on Moral Non-Naturalism is interpreted and criticized.
Findings: Based on this theory, moral terms are signs and indications of the characteristics of objects, but it is not acceptable that the terms which referred to by words such as "good" and "must" can be defined based on immoral terms. According to this view moral terms can only be understood by rational intuition, not through empirical observation or metaphysical reasoning. These issues can form the theoretical foundations of bioethics. Problems such as: indefinability of simple qualities, the type of abnormal characteristics, non-experiential (a priori) and intuition led to the emergence of emotivism, in spite of two centuries of loneliness of the Non-naturalistic theory. As the main result, the birth of the emotivism could be searched in the structural and internal problems of Non-naturalistic theory. So that, in spite of presenting a new plan in the field of analyzing concepts and moral propositions, Non-naturalistic theory due to numerous epistemological and ontological problems failed to meet expectations.
Conclusion: The findings showed that both of Non-naturalistic theory and the emotivism caused the readiness to develop other theories in the field of bioethics.
Please cite this article as: Abdullahi MA, Shiravand M. Criticize of George Moore's Theory on Moral Non-Naturalism. Bioethics Journal 2017; 7(26): 31-41.
- Ethics; George Moore; Non-Naturalistic; Moral Theory; Emotivism
How to Cite
References
Nielsen K. The Encyclopedia of philosophy. Edited by Edwards P. New York; 1972. Vol.1 p.615.
Frankena W. Philosophy of Ethics. Translated by: Sadeghi H. 4th ed. Qom: Taha Pub; 2013. [Persian]
Frankena W, Grand R. Realms of value, see selection frankena and Grand rose. Cambridge: Harvard University; 1954. Vol.3 p.10, 107.
Mesbah Yazdi MT. Review of Ethical Schools. Qom: Imam Khomeini Institute; 2012. [Persian]
Kurt B, Lawrence BC. Encyclopedia of Ethics. 1nd ed. New York & London: Garland Publishing; 1992. Vol.2 p.859.
Warnock M. The Philosophy of Ethics in the Twentieth Century. Qom: Abolqasem Fanayi; 2001.
McNaughton D. Moral vision: An introduction to ethics. Black well, Reprint ted; 1991. p.17.
Ayer AJ. Language truth and logic. p.111, 146. Available at: http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/ ayerLTL.pdf.
Robinson R. Definition. New York: Oxford University Press; 1972.
Neurath M. Vienna Circle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1962.
Carnap R, Proust J. Questions de for me. Praise: Minnesota. Translated by Brenner AA. As Questions of Form: Logical and the Analytic Proposition from Kant to Carnap. USA: University of Minnesota Press; 1989. p.77, 111.
Moore GE. A Defense of Common Sense philosophy. London: Contemporary British Philosophy (2nd series); 1959.
Schilipp PA. The philosophy of G.E. Moore. 1st ed. Evanston: Northwestern University; 1942.
Hosseini Shahroudi M. Philosophical Analysis and Analytical Philosophy. Journal of Razavi University 2015; (12): 5-15. [Persian]
Warnock M. The Philosophy of Ethics in the Twentieth Century. Qom: Abolqasem Fanayi; 2001. [Persian]
Moore GE. Principia Ethica. London: Cambridge University Press; 1993.
- Abstract Viewed: 468 times
- pdf (فارسی) Downloaded: 160 times