The difference between ethical naturalism and non-naturalism is a difference between the definiton of a moral fact. Ethical naturalism purports to explain ethical langague in terms of fact-stating semantics that correspond with the natural world. Such that, the statement 'killing is wrong' is deemed verifiable upon a epistemological corresponance with the external world; the fact that killing is in fact wrong. Whereas, ethical non-naturalism asserts that, albeit there are moral facts and that they have truth-value, they nontheless have a unique ontological and epistemic status. For instance, Moore argues that these are 'intuitions' of a moral agency. Thus, the statement 'killing is wrong' is verifiable upon the basis of one's intution. Hence, the difference between these two accounts is upon the definition of a moral fact.