| dc.description.abstract | This paper analyzes and synthesizes several philosophical conceptions that revolve around the possibility and impossibility of defining moral terms from a naturalistic objectivist perspective that is, reducing moral terms to natural events. It discusses and argues for and against subjectivism, relativism and moral objectivism. In addition, the pros and cons of the capture or not of the argument of the open question OQA proposed and developed by Moore is analyzed and evaluated.
Also, an exhaustive analysis is made about the naturalistic fallacy and a logical argument is developed that shows the legality of making ethical conclusions from unethical statements, so it is concluded that between the factual and normative there is a link that is not explicit, but implicit. Finally, the author defends his position in favor of a naturalistic objectivism as an ideal and fairer way for humans, either individually or collectively, to resolve or propose solutions to moral problems. The author makes a brief analysis and shows the possibilities and difficulties around the thought of Moore, non-naturalist and Jackson, naturalist. | |
