 Let us now explore non-naturalism, we have been talking about naturalism and in contrast what is non-naturalism. Let us explore what do we mean by non-naturalism when it is written as being a break in the universe. Now if you will take a look at the screen that well when we call non-naturalism a break in the universe what does this mean? Well, as we knew that naturalism subscribe to understanding moral properties or understanding value properties in terms of natural properties, in terms of natural properties. And non-naturalism was well making value judgements independent of moral property. So, somewhere there is a disconnect between the world out there and moral properties that the naturalist perhaps fails to see. Now let us take a look. Now non-naturalism when we talked about naturalism we talked about how we took utilitarianism or hedonism as a case study as a standard example that well if something that promotes happiness and happiness is desirable. Therefore, anything that promotes happiness which in itself is desirable is a good. And contrary to that anything that promotes suffering and suffering is undesirable and therefore suffering is bad that was a simple logic of a naturalist. But now let us look what currency or what weight does the non-naturalist have. Now let us argue this metaethical debate between naturalism and non-naturalism from a non-naturalist's perspective first. This naturalism versus non-naturalism debate is significant in the moral domain but also has its ramifications in other domains. For now we will keep ourselves restricted to how it is affecting the value debate. Now what does it take for us to make a moral decision, a value decision. If we are describing what our likes or preferences or satisfactions are or our aim for happiness is we are and basing this paradigm for our value framework when we are perhaps naturalists. But now let us take a look at this rather closely. What is it that we desire? What is it that makes us happy? Now if we are talking about say very fundamentally biological comforts of food shelter safety. Well these are essentially natural properties and natural phenomena and therefore the naturalist puts forth that these are preferred over insecurity or insufficiency of food or ill health and lack of shelter. What we have frequently referred as essential requirements for human life, even animal life. Now this is how the way the world is. Is this how the way the world ought to be? Now this is a significant difference in the two questions that will perhaps bring out the difference between naturalism and non-naturalism debate. Let us take a look at the board. This is the way the world is. This is the way the world ought to be. Now if these are the two sentences or propositions that we take into consideration that well, well instead of x if we write this as x and we write y and this is how the way the world is and this is how the world ought to be. Now what is it the way the world is? Well x is that we prefer over disease. Now when we talk about this that we prefer health over disease. Is this a naturalistic claim or a non-naturalistic claim? Well definitely it is a naturalistic claim. It is not a non-naturalistic claim. Well prefering health over disease is the way we are built, the way we are. That is it is the way we are. But let us look at, let us further generalize it that we prefer which will perhaps indicate what is the difficulty that we are likely to come up across. We prefer survival to death. Now this is the way things are that we prefer survival to death and this is again a naturalistic claim. Now let us hold on to this. As the third claim we have three claims, claims here 1, 2 and 3. Now when we talk, when we prefer survival to death it is a naturalistic claim. If we prefer survival to death, now let us try to imagine a situation where this is not true. This is not true in the case of say a martyr, a soldier who is out to fight a war and does not care about once his own life or her own life. Now when or say a doctor who is operating in adverse circumstances and exposing himself or herself to infections which could be fatal. In a famine affected area or in a riot or in a war torn country doctors go in where the operating conditions are far less than what it should be. This makes the operating staff, the medical staff vulnerable to numerable risks and infections which could also be fatal. In such a case we see that suppose we assume that the doctors or the operating team or the medical team continues with its work exposing oneself to this risk. What could be the justification for it? Now when the reason why I make this claim is that well we see that there are numerous counter instances of what is basic naturalistic survival code. Whereas there are innumerable violations of this if I may call basic natural survivalistic code. If each one of us or human beings are endowed with such a thing as the basic naturalistic survival code what about its violation? What is the justification for it or what could be the justification for it? Now it is here that the wedge or the gap exposed here that the gap is exposed for the non naturalistic or for non naturalism to enter. How do I say that well the gap it is still we are talking about this particular example well that each one of us has a basic naturalistic survival code and the violation for this has been frequently seen throughout the history of human civilization. We took two instances we took the instance of the soldier fighting who definitely survival for him would be better withdraw and the medical team in a worse stricken area with minimal hygiene and suitable medically operating conditions still going in for their duty. Now here they are doing something which is clearly a violation of their basic naturalistic survival code. This is an example of naturalism why do they do that? The naturalism as a metaethical claim is a description of the state of affairs it describes how things are but does it make a claim about how things should be. Now this is the crucial distinction that we need to keep in mind naturalism describes how things are but can we infer from this can we infer from this how things ought to be. Now it is this crucial link that is questioned by the non naturalist that well naturalism on the whole describes how things are but from this can we there of infer that how things ought to be the non naturalist answer is no human behavior has numerous exceptions the basic naturalistic survival code. Now these exceptions infer that there is another paradigm these exceptions may be taken as to infer there are other paradigms to arrive at moral decisions and these paradigms whatever they may be may be non naturalistic. So as we see naturalism was about describing or it is a description of the state of affairs non naturalism was about prescription or prescribing the right thing to do. Now it is here that the crucial difference strikes us but this is an interesting metaethical issue that we need to explore that well naturalism describes the way things are we know that well perhaps if I leave that mobile phone in that crowded train compartment and come back in five minutes it is going to be stolen somebody is going to pick it up. However that this will be the case there is no guarantee of it just as we may say that well if I switch on the mobile phone it connects to a network unless until it is programming and hardware mall function this is how it will happen however in the case of leaving the mobile phone in a crowded train compartment and then coming back in five minutes to check whether it is there or not we can never be so sure why can we never be so sure. Now I am taking the non naturalistic philosophers perspective well we can never be sure because human nature has that break in the universe that we have talked about that perhaps naturalism gives us our goals but what actually makes us act is not how we are equipped biologically or psychologically but also how we reason reflect or our values that we are not a passive recipient of the information or that is all around us it is rather a proactive assimilation manipulation and reaction to what information is available to us. So, the non naturalistic philosopher makes a claim that well the moral domain is a break from the naturalistic domain that the moral domain is no more continuous to the natural domain let us take a look at this if we have understood all the naturalistic facts about the case does that or a situation does that give us enough credence to predict the normative discipline right and this is what makes it different from other disciplines every discipline has a normative part right what is this normative part it comes from norms and where do norms come from a description or a natural order is a description and can a description of the state of affairs be a prescription now this is where the question is that where the non naturalistic philosopher comes in that well as long as there is a description it is insufficient to explain the goal where are we going to go now take take a very naive analogy to this now if I describe the road to you and you want to go on a travel journey well that is definitely not giving you the goal that where you would like to reach prescription is like the goal the norms every discipline be it the market system be it engineering be it the medical profession be it research in any field has to have a set of goals what is frequently understood or frequently mentioned as the motto the theme statement the philosophy of an organization of a discipline of a go of a subject of a laboratory of a project it is the direction given to it see the philosophy of a constitution of a country that what is the goal where do we have to go now describing the way things are is insufficient to arrive at a goal we have a goal and a goal that way is not a result of mere naturalistic phenomena all around let us say a leader dreams of peace and Bonomi in a war stricken country now this leader is thinking or having a goal which is separate from what is all around him somebody who is perhaps born and brought up in a war strife zone worst stricken zone how does that make one be okay with the war or that human beings have this ability to step aside from the perspective that they have been raised in and have a less perspective will look at the way things ought to be the non-naturalistic philosopher counts on this break in the universe what is the break from the naturalistic order to the human reaction to it but our reaction is not a mechanistic determined continuous chain with the way the world is so the non-naturalistic philosopher answers this as no this is not possible so norms have to come from somewhere else but definitely not the current or the naturalistic description so it is here that the non-naturalistic philosopher makes a claim that ethics as a moral enquiry is a normative enquiry ethics is normative and the normative part of every discipline normative part of any enterprise or discipline or project is not a result of what things are of what or of the way things are of the way things should be so this is what the non-naturalistic philosopher is trying to say that the normative part of any discipline not just ethics any normative claim is not a result of the way things are what of the way things should be let us say if I am a banker and let us say if I am a banker and if I require to reform the banking system and I have a vision that well it is normal for the customer to say wait in a queue for the teller to look into his requirement or if the teller can use his or her discrimination to decide on which customer to tackle first now these are the way things are and may be in many parts of the world that is how things are but perhaps if the manager or if the banker decides that well this is not the way I want things off to be I want people to be seated or a chronology to be followed or one to one tackling to be done these are instances where the non-naturalistic break is visible now you can easily correlate and compare this with leadership theories with management theories that what is it that makes a manager or a leader different from the rest well it is the ability to have a vision and the vision just does not come as a part of the description of the state of affairs but as a projection as how the leader or the manager wants things to be now wanting things to be in a certain way can definitely be a non-naturalistic claim it need not be a result of the environment one is exposed to it is perhaps somehow dependent on if I may say sparking out that inherent thoughtful creative streak in a person and where it is about this leader or the manager breaks with the naturalistic order and imagines tries to imagine how things should be or ought to be and there of restructures policies and go policies and procedures and motivational levels to attain that. So ethics as a discipline to a large extent depends on the distinction between the non-naturalistic order and the naturalistic order because when we try to understand ethics in terms in the naturalistic order we are actually reducing ethics to maybe sociology to be psychology maybe to social anthropology to culture to various other natural factors and there by there is nothing inspiring or there is nothing prescriptive about ethics as or normative enquiry so whenever we are prescribing something or giving goals it is definitely not an mere act of description it is an act of having a vision and sharing it with the others. So ethics the foundation of ethics as a discourse is a part of every other discourse or from ethics in any other discourse that is found is definitely normative and normative makes it almost if you take a look normative tends to be better explained as non-naturalistic. Now we talk about the next issue that we would like to tackle which is realism now realism is closely tied with both naturalism and non-naturalism as we have earlier understood that and talked about that realism claims that well entities exist irrespective of the perceiver. Now what does this mean in the moral domain that there are some moral values that exist independent of human perception let me put that on that exist independent of human perception something perhaps like the platonic values well not exactly rather more accurately it is that there are moral facts and this is what is meant by moral realism now having said that let us quick briefly go over what is being meant by this well first when we talked about realism we talk that realism means that entities exist independent of their perceiver what it simply means is that well this green board over here exists even when I am not seeing it or when anybody is not seeing it. So this was the realist domain I mean it seems to be pretty obvious that well things exist even when nobody is there to perceive them well no on the contrary the idealists have claimed that well everything is either created by the mind or conditioned by the mind. So we say something like a prejudice something like an idea and that say people of community X have Y property now this is almost a prejudice now what makes this prejudice is this prejudice real well no it is not real as we understood realism because it exists in the mind of the one who has this prejudice. So idealism or goes ahead to claim that well these ideas are dependent on the ideator and there is nothing independent existing independent of the perceiver but that debate does not concern us now what concerns us is moral realism that what do we mean by realism does it mean that there is because Plato was a moral realist of a sort who almost deified moral values and by saying that well there was this idea of justice and goodness which exist of independent of human perception and our aim is to we may never be able to know it we can only know the semblances of it. So there was this universal idea of justice or good you see a series of just acts and you infer that this is what is meant by justice. So we can give examples of just acts but we cannot perhaps we are finite enough limited not to describe what justice is. So that was the platonic claim and when further ahead to say that well justice goodness and all these moral values existed independent of human perception well we should not we do not now go so far ahead to make such claims which in today's parlance would almost be mythological of making of postulating entities such as the ideal good or justice that exists independent of human perception. Whereas as we noted on the slide it was written that well moral that there are moral facts that is what we mean by a moral realism that there are moral facts and as long as there are moral facts that means there is something objective about morality and they are not just opinions of agents. So that is what is meant by realism in the moral context. Now there is realism traditionally held that things are in themselves and it does not depend or is not perceived by a mind. Now who are not let us go into some examples of who are not moral realists or what is against moral realism well first is the skeptic then is the nihilist the skeptic questions unendingly about the possibility of knowledge possibility of moral knowledge in this case the nihilist on the other hand denies the possibility of knowledge at all. So when people who are schools that make a claim that there can be no objective talk about morality are not moral realists. So to be a moral realist well one has to be an objective objectivist about moral claims. Now there has been a lot of debate between realists and skeptics that has been put forth by an interesting example by a western philosopher which talks that well let us look at it this way. Now if we require when I talk about moral facts what am I asking when I say that well when I make a moral claim it has to be acceptable to others and the very attitude that there can be a moral claim acceptable by all talks about moral realism. An interesting example is put forth that well when we talk about this example brings forth tries to diffuse the attack of the skeptic on the moral realist. The skeptics asking to show that where are the moral facts is analogical similar to my asking or to anybody's asking that give me the address of the average Indian. Now there is a notion called the average Indian let us say there is a notion of averages there is a notion of average Indian middle class average Indian income average Indian psyche. But now when I ask the address of this average Indian where does it come from. Now this is what the moral realist replies to the skeptic that well when you ask for the location of moral facts you are actually asking a question that cannot be answered you are asking a question like give me the address of the average Indian how can I give you clearly it is nonsensical to attempt even giving the answer of the average Indian because it is an average it is not an individual. So, when I say that there is a moral fact it does not have to have a location to be a moral fact it is a moral fact by itself. Now what does moral realism depend upon now moral realism depends a lot upon our notions of what moral objectivity is. Now whenever we have a moral discourse or moral claim or a simple difference of opinion let us take an example the school or a school has raised its fees 10 folds and two students talk student A says that I do not like the school raising the fees it is too expensive and now it becomes painful for me to pay the second student student B is saying that well they were wrong in raising their fees. Now the student A's claim was an opinion where he clearly expressed his or her dissatisfaction with the new move of the school to hike the school fees by 10 times. The claim of student B was closer to moral absolutism was a judgment a judgment that need not be confined to himself. So, he is making a what is perhaps can be called a moral fact which is of course, judgeable and reviseable, but B's claim indicates that well there can be a objective moral judgment on an act. Now the act here is the schools raising the fees 10 times. Now whether that is right or wrong student A expressed his opinion let us say somebody in the management C person C expresses his opinion that well I feel very happy now that the fees have been raised to 10 times have been hiked by 10 times and now we will get good salaries. Now these are very if I may say a selfish or person specific perspectives, but if the newspaper editorial journal or student B is claim that well the school is wrong in hiking the fees is an indicator or a step towards a moral judgment. The student assuming now that the school comes up with its justification that well it is for these reasons that we raised hiked our school fees and if these justifications seem strong or reliable or robust then from a neutral perspective one can judge whether thus hiking the school fees was right or wrong. Now this may sound a little ambiguous, but isn't it what we do every day in our lives is in this not an option when the governments judge policies when the courts judge the cases. So we are actually assessing that we are going ahead with the claim that well we can find a moral fact let us take a look what is the structure of this claim. Now moral realists believe that there are moral facts how do we arrive at them is a question that is to be tackled next. So most moral realists tend to be fallibilists that is they believe that there is a moral fact, but how to arrive is the question whereas someone who is not a moral realist no moral facts that means there is no way of arriving at moral facts. So this question does not hold any value for the moral realist for the person or the philosophy or the school which is not a moral realist. Now this is the crucial difference now the moral realist one who is denying moral realist is more likely to be a relativist or a nihilist whereas someone who is a moral realist is going to accept moral facts, but the effort is to find out to describe this to describe this paradigm to arrive at the claim. So a moral realist can also be a naturalist that is to be noted can be a naturalist how do you say that well a moral realist can be a naturalist because this paradigm is answered by naturalism. So we have talked about moral realism and what does it take to be a moral realist and what does it take to be a non-moral realist.