This isn’t in direct response to the OP… just that there is lots of heat and not a lot of light on this subject so throwing some light.
David Gordon’s critique of Molyneux’s ethical ideas.
There are at least four levels of connotation at work in moral-value language:
- A value-laden expression of an individual’s own sentiments about a particular kind of human behavior (distaste, preference)
- A value-free description of prevailing moral norms
- A value-free assessment of the suitability of specific ends to bringing about an individual’s satisfaction (in the technical sense of this term) - this is where Epicurus (correctly) placed the locus of ethical discussion
- A value-laden assessment of the correct resolution of a dispute
The objective/subjective distinction should not be confused with value-free/value-laden distinction.
Naturalistic fallacy: Assuming that because something is natural it is, therefore, moral or vice-versa
Moralistic fallacy: Assuming that because something is moral it is, therefore, natural or vice-versa
Clayton -