1. Explain what G. E. Moore means by ‘the naturalistic fallacy’. What is the fallacy involved? Why is it called ‘naturalistic’? Is the fallacy one that belongs to the sphere of ethics in principle, or is it merely more frequently found there than elsewhere? Provide an example of what Moore would call the naturalistic fallacy.
2. Explain Kant’s distinction between the public and private use of reason. May the same person use their reason both publicly and privately? Explain. May either public or private reason be legitimately restricted? What examples of illegitimate restrictions on the private use of reason does Kant give? When a person makes public use of his reason, he is acting in his capacity as a...what? Explain.
3. Explicate Kant’s argument, in Groundwork I, 395-396, for why happiness isn’t the proper aim of the human will.
4. Explain what Kant means when he says that the principle of the will is “universal conformity of its actions to law as such.” How does this differ from obedience to particular laws? How does Kant apply this principle to the example of telling a lie?
5. What is a metaphysics of morals? How does Kant contrast it with popular morality? What does Kant mean when he states that moral principles are not empirical? Why does he hold this?
6. In the latter half of the second part of the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant describes how three of his formulations of the categorical imperative relate to each other. Give the three formulations Kant treats. How does he explain how these are three different formulations of one imperative?
7. Provide a visual depiction, in the form of a hierarchy, of Kant’s classification of all possible spurious principles of morality founded upon the supposedly fundamental concept of heteronomy.
This material may consist of step-by-step explanations on how to solve a problem or examples of proper writing, including the use of citations, references, bibliographies, and formatting. This material is made available for the sole purpose of studying and learning - misuse is strictly forbidden.In accusing interlocutors of ‘the naturalistic fallacy’, Moore was concerned with a very particular move of reasoning – that of inferring from some property of a thing to that thing’s being, thus, good. To clarify, consider a ‘natural’ property of a thing: for example, say a flower has physical properties of smell, color, and shape such that beholding it is pleasant. But, an additional move is made when one concludes, therefore, that the flower is good. Moore’s point is that there is nothing that sanctions such a move, that to draw such a conclusion is to commit a fallacy – which he named ‘the naturalistic fallacy’. It is called ‘naturalistic’ because it attempts to reduce non-natural or non-intrinsic properties such as goodness to natural, intrinsic properties such as the pleasantness of the perception of a flower. Presumably, even though Moore was concerned with goodness, the fallacy could be seen to be not restricted to goodness or ethical concerns; rather...