Ethical naturalism

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) The article's lead section may need to be rewritten. Please review the lead layout guide and help improve the lead of this article if you can. (February 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (May 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Ethical naturalism (also called moral naturalism or naturalistic cognitivistic definism)^[1] is the meta-ethical view that holds that moral properties and facts are reducible to natural properties and can be studied through empirical or scientific means. It asserts that moral values are objective features of the natural world and can be understood through reason, observation, or the natural sciences. Ethical naturalists argue that moral statements, such as "kindness is good" or "stealing is wrong," are fact-based and can be verified in the same way as other statements about the world. This position stands in contrast to ethical non-naturalism, which maintains that moral properties are not reducible to natural properties, and to moral anti-realism, which denies that objective moral truths exist. Ethical naturalism has been supported by various philosophical traditions, including utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and evolutionary ethics, but has also been challenged by critics, most notably through G.E. Moore’s "open-question argument," which questions whether moral properties can be fully explained in natural terms.