
	Where results make sense

Topic: Naturalistic fallacy

Related Topics

logical fallacies

red herring fallacy

bandwagon fallacies

relativist fallacy

Correlation implies causation logical fallacy

Two wrongs make a right fallacy

naturalistic fallacy

fallacies of definition

Syllogistic fallacies

pathetic fallacy

accident fallacy

Fallacy of many questions

In the News (Sat 25 May 13)

EXECUTIVE POWER

Iran

ANALYSIS

Pakistan

Family compact

	Naturalistic Fallacy
		Naturalistic fallacy — when what ‘ought to be’ is derived from what ‘is’; also known as a perspective which reduces the question of values to that of facts; logically classified as a fallacy of definition, diversion or irrelevance.
		Naturalistic fallacies may therefore be seen as a legacy of Enlightenment thinking, as far as they perpetuate the myth that Reason, Science and Progress are sole referents to meaning, value and order in human life.
		It is thus a naturalistic fallacy to insist an explosion ought to happen gradually by a natural process of species variation and differentiation enacted through random mutations.
	www.iscid.org /encyclopedia/Naturalistic_Fallacy (1301 words)

	Moral Non-Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
		For if the naturalist holds that a given moral predicate M is equivalent in meaning to some definition N couched entirely in non-moral predicates then she is obviously committed to holding that the relevant questions are not open and the naturalist might therefore simply deny the main premise of Moore's argument.
		Once the naturalist allows that there are non-moral evaluative properties that are relevant to the assessment of theories there is room for the non-naturalist to argue that moral evaluative properties need not be all that different (metaphysically and epistemologically) and hence no more problematic than the evaluative properties presupposed by the objection.
		Presumably the naturalist's best strategy is to argue that the values she has in mind are purely naturalistic ones that we do have independent reason to accept because they figure in the best explanations of our experiences.
	plato.stanford.edu /entries/moral-non-naturalism (8967 words)

	Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Nature
		However, the naturalistic fallacy is a much broader error: for instance, the utilitarian definition of "good" as "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" would also commit the fallacy, since all of the terms in the definition are naturalistic.
		The naturalistic fallacy is an alleged error in definition, not an error in argument.
		The naturalistic fallacy is an alleged error in ethics, not in logic.
	www.fallacyfiles.org /adnature.html (739 words)

	Fallacies [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
		It is the converse of the composition fallacy.
		Guilt by association is a version of the ad hominem fallacy in which a person is said to be guilty of error because of the group he or she associates with.
		This fallacy is a kind of non sequitur in which the premises are wholly irrelevant to drawing the conclusion.
	www.iep.utm.edu /f/fallacy.htm (13659 words)

	The Naturalistic Fallacy Dissolves [matters to metaethics] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
		Naturalistic fallacy is the error in drawing conclusions about what ought to be from the grounds that make only what is in fact the case.
		Because of such understanding that, the naturalistic fallacy is ipso facto a logical error, it becomes unallowable to draw a conclusion about moral acts from either what ought to be in nature or what simply is in nature.
		Thinking or speaking of the naturalistic fallacy is a necessary invention (or by-product) from the idea of what the nature is; now that the nature is given the form of at least five dimensions, it is then necessary to reconsider whether such a notion of fallacy is apt in the first place.
	www.metaethics.org /mtm/doc1110.html (1402 words)

	IS THOMAS
		Moreover, nonsense such as the "naturalistic fallacy" clouds minds, and it is thought that Thomas must be so interpreted as to be saying that the truths of the practical order are utterly independent of the way the world is, independent of nature and facts, of descriptive truths.
		Naturalist interpreters seem to think knowledge of the human good is in itself speculative, since they think it is of what-is, but that it is practical in a certain sense, or becomes practical later, because it is ordained to operation.
		From Thomas's position it still follows that the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy, and the knowledge of the human good is arrived at originally by practical knowledge.
	www2.franciscan.edu /plee/is_thomas.htm (8851 words)

	On the Naturalistic Fallacy: A Conceptual Basis for Evolutionary Ethics by John Teehan and Christopher diCarlo
		Abstract: In debates concerning evolutionary approaches to ethics the Naturalistic Fallacy (i.e., deriving values from facts or "ought" from "is") is often invoked as a constraining principle.
		The Naturalistic Fallacy cuts off any such strategy by pointing out that simply because something has played a certain role in the evolution of the species it does not follow that it ought to continue to play that role, or that it can play no other role.
		This is, in fact, what we believe the Naturalistic fallacy does: it does not demarcate the boundaries between science and ethics, or between science and religion—it invalidates certain attempts at developing an ethics.
	human-nature.com /ep/articles/ep023246.html (6047 words)

	Naturalistic Fallacy - EvoWiki (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
		Creationists often apply the naturalistic fallacy to natural selection ("survival of the fittest"), as part of their continuing campaign of anti-evolutionary propaganda.
		The naturalistic fallacy is often coupled with genetic determinism when applied to sociobiology, and even scientists like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin can run afoul of it.
		The naturalistic fallacy is also used in arguments against genetic engineering, pro-organic/natural foods (which are actually unnatural, having been subject to artificial selection) and in argument for many pseudosciences especially alternative medicine.
	wiki.cotch.net /index.php/Naturalistic_Fallacy (309 words)

	Logical Fallacies in Psychology
		This fallacy, one of the fallacies of circularity, takes the form of arguments or other statements that simply assume or re-state their own truth rather than providing relevant evidence and logical arguments.
		Also known as the "either/or" fallacy or the fallacy of false choices, this fallacy takes the form of only acknowledging 2 (one of which is usually extreme) options from a continuum or other array of possibilities.
		The fallacy of the Golden Mean (or fallacy of compromise, or fallacy of moderation) takes the form of assuming that the most valid conclusion is that which accepts the best compromise between two competing positions.
	kspope.com /fallacies/fallacies.php (1477 words)

	NCPA Debate Central -- Logical Fallacies and Debate
		This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition.
		One unsettling implication of taking the naturalistic fallacy seriously is that, in order to reach any conclusions of value, one must be willing to posit some initial statement or statements of value that will be treated as axioms, and which cannot themselves be justified on purely logical grounds.
		In addition, it is not fallacious at all to point out that certain advantages or disadvantages may apply equally to both positions presented in a debate, and therefore they cannot provide a reason for favoring one position over the other (such disadvantages are referred to as "non-unique").
	www.ncpa.org /debate2/fallacies.html (5283 words)

	ADLER ARCHIVE: Comments On the Naturalistic Fallacy
		It may be useful, nevertheless, to examine the so-called "naturalistic fallacy"; by correcting the mistake implicit in the formulation of it, we can clarify the meaning of "good" without attempting to define it.
		But, first, it is necessary to distinguish two forms of the "naturalistic fallacy," the one pointed out by David Hume in the eighteenth century, the other by G. Moore at the beginning of this century.
		The logical fallacy to which Hume called attention is formally similar to the violation of the rule governing considerations of modality in reasoning.
	radicalacademy.com /adlernaturalisticfallacy.htm (783 words)

	George Edward Moore's Principia Ethica
		The ‘naturalistic fallacy’ is to assume that if we name various properties of things which we believe to be good, we are actually defining ‘good.’ Moore argues that 'Naturalism' does not provide any logical reason for any ethical principle, because it falsely assumes that it has defined what is good.
		The ‘naturalistic fallacy’ occurs when we think of something as good because the thing in question is related to some other natural object which we think of as good.
		Metaphysical Ethics reveal the naturalistic fallacy in that they assume that, by making propositions about the nature of ultimate reality, we can define what is good.
	www.angelfire.com /md2/timewarp/moore.html (1624 words)

	Against Nature
		Naturalistic arguments use the multiple meanings of the word "nature" to solder a dubious claim about biology or Divine Plan to a negative value judgement, and then to make the whole thing look like a mere statement of fact.
		The herbalist argues that herbs are substances that evolved in the same environment with people and have had an extended field trial on human beings over thousands of years; thus they are likely to be a less disruptive and side-effect laden way of treating an illness than the drugs "designed" to do so.
		Thus, for example one might acknowledge that both the identification of "a threat to the environment," such as "air pollution," and a notion of "a cause" (for example, overuse of the internal combustion engine) were socially constructed.
	www.law.duke.edu /boylesite/tls98nat.htm (1756 words)

	philosophical breakthroughs sophistry naturalistic fallacy new philosophy
		Because of the "naturalistic fallacy." This is the fallacy of inferring values from facts.
		I do not commit this fallacy, and avoiding it was the least of my problems.
		Perhaps the question is "why were my professors and colleagues so sure that a science of values must commit the naturalistic fallacy?" Because they are sophists.
	members.aol.com /miletus1/philbrk.htm (753 words)

	Logical Fallacies .info - Fallacies of Relevance - Naturalistic Fallacy
		The naturalistic fallacy is the alleged fallacy of inferring a statement of the latter kind from a statement of the former kind.
		Arguments that commit the naturalistic fallacy are arguably flawed in exactly the same way.
		This argument moves from a statement of fact to a value judgement, and therefore commits the naturalistic fallacy.
	www.logicalfallacies.info /naturalisticfallacy.html (355 words)

	Keith Devens - Weblog: The Naturalistic Fallacy is only valid on the Christian worldview - January 21, 2005 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
		The Naturalistic Fallacy is only valid on the Christian worldview
		The naturalistic fallacy presupposes that there is some external standard of morality that supersedes nature, yet if our nature is a product of evolution and there is no God, then nature's all we got.
		So, the naturalistic fallacy, which claims that what is natural is not necessarily good, and what's good is not necessarily natural, has no way to justify that apart from the Christian worldview.
	keithdevens.com /weblog/archive/2005/Jan/21/naturalistic-fallacy (1240 words)

	Chapter II: Naturalistic Ethics: PRINCIPIA ETHICA (1903) by G. E. Moore (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
		I propose, therefore, to discuss certain theories of what is good in itself, which are based on the naturalistic fallacy, in the sense that the commission of this fallacy has been the main cause of their wide acceptance.
		To declare it to be obvious is to suggest the naturalistic fallacy: just as in some recent books, a proof that genius is diseased, abnormal, has been used to suggest that genius ought not to be encouraged.
		It remains only to state clearly what is definitely fallacious in prevalent views as to the relation of Evolution to Ethics—in those views with regard to which it seems so uncertain how far Mr Spencer intends to encourage them.
	fair-use.org /g-e-moore/principia-ethica/chapter-ii (7246 words)

	Appeal to nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Appeal to nature is a simplified type of naturalistic fallacy in argument form.
		An appeal to nature fallacy consists of a claim that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural.
		In this type of fallacy nature is often implied as an ideal or desired state of being, a state of how things were, should be, or are: in this sense an appeal to nature may resemble an appeal to tradition.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Appeal_to_nature (424 words)

	Naturalistic Fallacy
		Naturalistic fallacy depends on assuming that the current state of affairs is good, proper or natural.
		Here's an example of a philosophy student who's quite certain it is a fallacy: http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/isought.html.
		This hasn't any bearing on the Naturalistic Fallacy itself (that'd be AdHominem after all ;) but it certainly goes to warn about trusting the authority of random page authors.
	c2.com /cgi/wiki?NaturalisticFallacy (828 words)

	Principia Ethica by G. E. Moore [ISBN: 0521443784] - Find Cheap Textbook Prices & Save BIG
		Moore's naturalistic fallacy says that all statements about good and bad and right and wrong must, when they are reduced to their basic meaning, involve some irreducible statement(s) about duties and right and wrong.
		Like Thomas Kuhn's "paradigm shift," the naturalistic fallacy is tirelessly invoked by writers to mean any number of things, not many of which agree with the author's original usage.
		Contra those numerous authors that use it to mean simply the fallacy of supposing what is natural to be de facto good (that is one manifestation of it, but not it), the naturalistic fallacy has a much broader meaning.
	www.gettextbooks.com /isbn_0521443784.html (3613 words)

	Naturalistic Fallacy (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
		Another aspect of the Naturalistic Fallacy is a move from a "fact," i.e.
		The Naturalistic Fallacy gets much of its force from a feeling that we cannot condemn anything that is "natural." Perhaps this feeling comes from the fact that, in general, we do not make moral judgments outside the scope of human affairs.
		A Fallacy of Irrelevance (a deductive fallacy of soundness with a falsehood in the major premiss) in the Fallacies of Diversion family.
	www.cuyamaca.net /bruce.thompson/Fallacies/naturalistic.asp (712 words)

	HBES2002 submitted abstract 130 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
		In discussions about the possible contributions of evolutionary studies to moral philosophy the Naturalistic Fallacy (i.e., deriving values from facts or “ought” from “is”) often is invoked as a constraining principle.
		This is a common critique of evolutionary ethics, but one which is based on an insufficient appreciation of the full implications of the Naturalistic Fallacy.
		The authors argue that the Naturalistic Fallacy, broadly interpreted, rules out any attempt to treat morality as defined according to some pre-existing reality, whether that reality is expressed in natural or extra-natural terms.
	www.rci.rutgers.edu /~hbes/abstracts/130.html (226 words)

	RoR: Forum
		British philosopher G.E. Moore (1873-1958), author of Principia Ethica coined a term for this view; he called it "the naturalistic fallacy," and students of philosophy are sure to encounter it in their ethics courses.
		The philosophical name given to your fallacious view is 'naturalistic fallacy', and it is based on the intrinsic independence of ought and is. It was once described by David Hume."
		It is a testament to the bankruptcy of modern philosophy that Moore's faux fallacy has acquired the kind of currency it has, for contrary to Catala, the misnamed "naturalistic fallacy" is itself a fallacy.
	rebirthofreason.com /Forum/GeneralForum/0833.shtml (2323 words)

	Butterflies and Wheels Article
		However, it is difficult to agree which are these questions and their possible answers because the debate is often driven by the naturalistic fallacy, the belief that nature is essentially good.
		However, some of these questions and their possible answers are driven by the naturalistic fallacy, the belief that nature is essentially good.
		Another myth deriving from the naturalistic fallacy is that we are so stupid, greedy and selfish that we will inevitably consume all the resources that good Mother Nature provides for our survival.
	www.butterfliesandwheels.com /articleprint.php?num=108 (2019 words)

	[No title]
		The second is that since Spencer believes that pleasure is the same as goodness, then he is once again committing the naturalistic fallacy.
		The name "naturalistic fallacy" implies that it is a fallacy to define good (which is non-natural) in terms of natural properties.
		Accordingly, William Frankena argues that Moore is actually describing a definist fallacy which has as subsets the naturalistic fallacy and the metaphysical fallacy.
	www.utm.edu /~jfieser/vita/research/spencer.htm (2570 words)

	Reason Magazine - Naturalistic Fallacy
		Even if one allows a god outside the natural world, this is little comfort, for a "Creator who merely sets a process in motion and thereafter keeps hands off is easily ignored." But, if we exclude or deny the Christian God, then we have no reason to endorse Christian morality.
		And, if we do not endorse Christian morality, then the only alternative is moral anarchy: "Naturalistic metaphysics leads inexorably to relativism in ethics and politics." Curiously, in my book on naturalism, the very thing I was trying to do was to get away from relativism.
		Not only because it is in flat contradiction to demands he makes elsewhere that the naturalist answer all questions (else the argument is "a nonstarter"), but because, with an undercurrent of grumblings throughout his book about abortion, homosexuality, and the like, Johnson clearly is pushing an alternative.
	www.reason.com /news/show/30010.html (2215 words)

	Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Moore advanced an argument for the indefinability of “good” (and demonstrating the “naturalistic fallacy”) which is known as the Open Question Argument.
		Accident • Ad nauseam • Base rate fallacy • Chronological snobbery • Compound question • Fallacy of many questions • False compromise •
		Naturalistic fallacy • Proof by assertion • Irrelevant conclusion • Special pleading • Straw man • Two wrongs make a right
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy (1003 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)