6 added defense of ancient skeptics as proponents of metaphysical naturalists
source | link

I am wondering about traditions of ethics which might incorporate naturalism or skepticism.

As far as I understand, the Academic Skeptics, in particular Carneades and Cicero, held that there was no way to know anything for certain, but also held that you could draw conclusions about good and evil from available evidence. They did not think that the existence of a moral good was completely subjective, and they also did not think that the existence of moral goods required a supernatural agent. From the position of the Academic Skeptics, you could derive an ought from an is.

This point of view seems to be consistent with metaphysical naturalism. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it,

From the Hellenistic point of view, theology is part of physics. An account of god is part of an account of the natural world (as such, it is unrecognizable as ‘theology’ from the point of view of later theologies). Human beings and their cognitive faculties are natural parts of a natural world. They are organic and functional parts, interconnected with the other parts of the large whole which the universe is. A mind-world-gap (of the kind envisaged in the Cartesian tradition) is inconceivable. Each ‘mind,’ and that is, rational soul, is an integrated physical part of the physical world.

My question is two-fold. First, is my understanding of the ethical position of Cicero correct, and second, are there modern schools of philosophical thought that follow this tradition? To clarify the second question further, are there modern metaphysical naturalists who maintain that questions of good and evil are meaningful?

I am wondering about traditions of ethics which might incorporate naturalism or skepticism.

As far as I understand, the Academic Skeptics, in particular Carneades and Cicero, held that there was no way to know anything for certain, but also held that you could draw conclusions about good and evil from available evidence. They did not think that the existence of a moral good was completely subjective, and they also did not think that the existence of moral goods required a supernatural agent. From the position of the Academic Skeptics, you could derive an ought from an is.

My question is two-fold. First, is my understanding of the ethical position of Cicero correct, and second, are there modern schools of philosophical thought that follow this tradition? To clarify the second question further, are there modern metaphysical naturalists who maintain that questions of good and evil are meaningful?

I am wondering about traditions of ethics which might incorporate naturalism or skepticism.

As far as I understand, the Academic Skeptics, in particular Carneades and Cicero, held that there was no way to know anything for certain, but also held that you could draw conclusions about good and evil from available evidence. They did not think that the existence of a moral good was completely subjective, and they also did not think that the existence of moral goods required a supernatural agent. From the position of the Academic Skeptics, you could derive an ought from an is.

This point of view seems to be consistent with metaphysical naturalism. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it,

From the Hellenistic point of view, theology is part of physics. An account of god is part of an account of the natural world (as such, it is unrecognizable as ‘theology’ from the point of view of later theologies). Human beings and their cognitive faculties are natural parts of a natural world. They are organic and functional parts, interconnected with the other parts of the large whole which the universe is. A mind-world-gap (of the kind envisaged in the Cartesian tradition) is inconceivable. Each ‘mind,’ and that is, rational soul, is an integrated physical part of the physical world.

My question is two-fold. First, is my understanding of the ethical position of Cicero correct, and second, are there modern schools of philosophical thought that follow this tradition? To clarify the second question further, are there modern metaphysical naturalists who maintain that questions of good and evil are meaningful?

5 clarified the question.
source | link

What is the historical context of morals and objective reality How do metaphysical naturalists approach ethics?

I am wondering about traditions of ethics which might incorporate naturalism or skepticism.

For exampleAs far as I understand, which schools of philosophical thought holdthe Academic Skeptics, in particular Carneades and Cicero, held that it is possible to get an ought from an is? Have there been philosophers who maintained that it was possibleno way to know right from wrong in an objective or universal sense (or at least as well as we know blue from red) but arguedanything for metaphysical naturalism? Are any such philosophers influential today?

Interesting or usefull answers will includecertain, but also held that you could draw conclusions about good and evil from available evidence. They did not think that the nameexistence of at least one published author. I am interested in answersa moral good was completely subjective, and they also did not think that will help me to learn more about naturalism in philosophythe existence of moral goods required a supernatural agent. From the position of the Academic Skeptics, you could derive an ought from an is.

My own research to this point points to Cicero as a philosopher who held this viewpointquestion is two-fold. First, but I'm interested inis my understanding of the evolutionethical position of Cicero correct, and second, are there modern schools of philosophical thought that follow this tradition? To clarify the second question over time.further, are there modern metaphysical naturalists who maintain that questions of good and evil are meaningful?

What is the historical context of morals and objective reality?

I am wondering about traditions of ethics which might incorporate naturalism or skepticism.

For example, which schools of philosophical thought hold that it is possible to get an ought from an is? Have there been philosophers who maintained that it was possible to know right from wrong in an objective or universal sense (or at least as well as we know blue from red) but argued for metaphysical naturalism? Are any such philosophers influential today?

Interesting or usefull answers will include the name of at least one published author. I am interested in answers that will help me to learn more about naturalism in philosophy.

My own research to this point points to Cicero as a philosopher who held this viewpoint, but I'm interested in the evolution of this question over time.

How do metaphysical naturalists approach ethics?

I am wondering about traditions of ethics which might incorporate naturalism or skepticism.

As far as I understand, the Academic Skeptics, in particular Carneades and Cicero, held that there was no way to know anything for certain, but also held that you could draw conclusions about good and evil from available evidence. They did not think that the existence of a moral good was completely subjective, and they also did not think that the existence of moral goods required a supernatural agent. From the position of the Academic Skeptics, you could derive an ought from an is.

My question is two-fold. First, is my understanding of the ethical position of Cicero correct, and second, are there modern schools of philosophical thought that follow this tradition? To clarify the second question further, are there modern metaphysical naturalists who maintain that questions of good and evil are meaningful?

4 added 181 characters in body
source | link

I am wondering about traditions of ethics which might incorporate naturalism or skepticism.

For example, which schools of philosophical thought hold that it is possible to get an ought from an is? Have there been philosophers who maintained that it was possible to know right from wrong in an objective or universal sense (or at least as well as we know blue from red) but argued for metaphysical naturalism? Are any such philosophers influential today?

Interesting or usefull answers will include the name of at least one published author. I am interested in answers that will help me to learn more about naturalism in philosophy.

My own research to this point points to Cicero as a philosopher who held this viewpoint, but I'm interested in the evolution of this question over time.

I am wondering about traditions of ethics which might incorporate naturalism or skepticism.

For example, which schools of philosophical thought hold that it is possible to get an ought from an is? Have there been philosophers who maintained that it was possible to know right from wrong in an objective or universal sense (or at least as well as we know blue from red) but argued for metaphysical naturalism? Are any such philosophers influential today?

Interesting or usefull answers will include the name of at least one published author. I am interested in answers that will help me to learn more about naturalism in philosophy.

I am wondering about traditions of ethics which might incorporate naturalism or skepticism.

For example, which schools of philosophical thought hold that it is possible to get an ought from an is? Have there been philosophers who maintained that it was possible to know right from wrong in an objective or universal sense (or at least as well as we know blue from red) but argued for metaphysical naturalism? Are any such philosophers influential today?

Interesting or usefull answers will include the name of at least one published author. I am interested in answers that will help me to learn more about naturalism in philosophy.

My own research to this point points to Cicero as a philosopher who held this viewpoint, but I'm interested in the evolution of this question over time.

3 added 181 characters in body
source | link
2 reduced word count and simplified question.
source | link
    Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/225131889185406976
1
source | link