What is the difference between ethical naturalism and non-naturalism's account of moral language?

Ethical naturalism and non-naturalism are two different philosophical approaches to understanding moral language. Here are the main differences between them:

1. Ethical naturalism: Ethical naturalism is the view that moral terms and concepts can be reduced to or explained by naturalistic facts. According to ethical naturalists, moral language can be analyzed and understood in terms of empirical observations about the natural world, such as scientific facts about human nature, biology, or evolutionary theory.
2. Non-naturalism: Non-naturalism, on the other hand, is the view that moral terms and concepts cannot be reduced to naturalistic facts. Non-naturalists argue that moral language is fundamentally different from other types of language, such as descriptive or scientific language, and that moral concepts cannot be explained or understood in terms of naturalistic or empirical facts.

In summary, the key difference between ethical naturalism and non-naturalism is whether moral language can be analyzed and understood in naturalistic terms or whether it requires a separate, non-naturalistic explanation. Ethical naturalism holds that moral language can be understood in terms of naturalistic facts, while non-naturalism maintains that moral language is fundamentally different from other types of language and requires a unique explanation.