‘Good is not a natural quality’ discuss

I agree with the statement saying that good is not a natural quality, instead, I think it intuitive.Naturalism is the point of view where you think that you can define good by observing the world and reasoning ethical facts. For example you could say ‘murder is wrong’ because it is verified by the pain caused after someone is murdered. FH Bradley is an ethical naturalist who believed that ethical statements are facts and your duty is determined by your position in society. He said ‘what he has to do depends on what his place is’. Therefore naturalists, including Bradley would say that good is a natural quality.However, I would argue that this view is false because of Humes law. This is the view that you cannot go from an ‘is statement’ (a factual statement) to an ‘ought statement’ (a statement of morality) because there is a gap in reasoning as the two are in no way connected. Although, Utilitarian bridges the gap by linking goodness to pleasure, therefore you would be able to go from a factual statement to morality depending on what is pleasurable. Another criticism comes from GE Moore’s naturalistic fallacy. This is the view that you cannot break down good into different aspects because it is simple and singular. According to Moore then, you would not be able to bridge the gap with utilitarianism because it defines good as what is most pleasurable, and if good is singular, you would not be able to do this. Therefore Hume’s is-ought problem and Moore’s naturalistic fallacy both criticise naturalism so this means that good is not a natural quality.