Write a short note on Draw a comparison between Ethical Naturalism and Ethical Non-Naturalism.

Ethical Naturalism and Ethical Non-Naturalism represent contrasting perspectives within the realm of metaethics, addressing the ontological status of moral properties and the nature of moral facts.

Ethical Naturalism:
Ethical Naturalism asserts that moral properties are natural properties and can be analyzed or reduced to facts about the natural world. Naturalists often ground moral properties in empirical observations or scientific principles, aiming to establish a connection between the natural and moral realms.

• Moral Facts and Natural Facts: Ethical Naturalists contend that moral facts are, in some sense, reducible to or synonymous with natural facts. For example, a naturalist might argue that stating "X is morally good" is equivalent to asserting "X maximizes overall well-being."

• Scientific Foundation: Naturalists often look to scientific disciplines, such as biology or psychology, to provide a foundation for moral claims. They believe that understanding human nature and the world's natural processes can yield insights into ethical principles.

• Challenges: Critics argue that ethical naturalism faces challenges in bridging the gap between descriptive (what is) and prescriptive (what ought to be) aspects of morality. The so-called "is-ought" problem, famously articulated by David Hume, questions the logical transition from empirical observations to normative moral claims.

Ethical Non-Naturalism:
Ethical Non-Naturalism, on the other hand, posits that moral properties are irreducible and distinct from natural properties. Non-Naturalists reject the idea that moral facts can be fully analyzed or defined in terms of naturalistic language or empirical observations.

• Moral Properties as Irreducible: Non-Naturalists argue that moral properties, such as goodness or rightness, cannot be reduced to any natural or empirical features. Instead, they see moral properties as sui generis, existing independently of and unexplained by natural properties.

• Intuition and Rationality: Ethical Non-Naturalists often appeal to moral intuitions and rationality as sources of moral knowledge. They contend that certain moral truths are self-evident or grasped through rational reflection, and these truths are not contingent on empirical observations.

• G.E. Moore's Open Question Argument: G.E. Moore, a prominent Ethical Non-Naturalist, presented the Open Question Argument, suggesting that any attempt to define goodness in naturalistic terms inevitably raises the question, "Is that good thing actually good?" This highlights the irreducible nature of moral properties.

Comparison:

1. Ontological Status: The primary distinction lies in the ontological status of moral properties. Ethical Naturalism sees moral properties as part of the natural world, while Ethical Non-Naturalism posits them as irreducible and distinct entities.

2. Reductionism: Ethical Naturalism tends towards reductionism, seeking to reduce moral properties to natural properties. Ethical Non-Naturalism rejects reductionism, maintaining the irreducibility of moral properties.

3. Relation to Empirical Observation: Ethical Naturalism often looks to empirical observations and scientific inquiry for moral foundations. In contrast, Ethical Non-Naturalism emphasizes non-empirical sources, such as intuition and rationality, in grasping moral truths.

In conclusion, Ethical Naturalism and Ethical Non-Naturalism present divergent views on the nature of moral properties and the relationship between the natural and moral realms. Naturalism seeks to ground morality in the natural world, while Non-Naturalism insists on the irreducibility and distinctiveness of moral properties. The debate between these perspectives continues to shape discussions in metaethics.