Talk:Naturalistic fallacy

Style
This page as-is seems fairly unclear to me, replete with unexplained/unlinked philosophical jargon and even latin terms. Is this complexity an unavoidable consequence of explaining a big concept in a way that's precise and accurate? Or could it be edited into simpler English without loss of value? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.109.90 (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know who made the above statement, or when, but it is still true in April 2020. I chanced upon this article when searching WP for an explanation of moral decoupling, which I found in the title of an academic article Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger: How Moral Decoupling Enables Consumers to Admire and Admonish. This search led me to the section of this article titled Effects of putative necessities. I have to say, the first sentence of the section is remarkable in its opacity. I am (IMHO) very facile with the English language, and it took me several tries at reading the sentence to be able to make any sense of it. "The effect of beliefs about dangers on behaviors intended to protect what is considered valuable is pointed at as an example of total decoupling of ought from is being impossible." I finally determined that it means that 'beliefs about dangers' has an effect on a person's actions in attempting to protect something that person deems valuable, and that this effect is an example of the impossibility of totally decoupling of ought from is. Did I get that right? If we expect the above average intelligent reader of WP who has an interest in philosophy to get value from reading an article like this, the English should be plainer, and the sentence structure less byzantine. Paulmlieberman (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That section was added in this edit by an IP address in 2018. The IP address is in Sweden, so English may be a second language of the person who wrote it. Often when I find incomprehensible prose on Wikipedia, I find it was written by someone for whom English is a second language (but of course some people in that category use perfectly clear English). I would recommend checking the cited source and rewriting the passage in accord with the cited source. Biogeographist (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, the prose in this article is amazingly bad, but I also suspect that even if the prose were cleared up it would still be a bad article, full of loose thought. Seadowns (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Fallacy of division

 * Given that Moore's real targets are semantic reductionism (the position that the term 'good' may be defined with non-moral terms and concepts), and metaphysical reductionism (the position that the property goodness is identical to, or constituted by, non-moral properties), a better label for the alleged error might be "the reductionist fallacy".

It might be worth pointing out that Moore is potentially making the Fallacy of Division. For instance, a materialist argues that "yellow" (in the sense of qualia) arises from yellow light and the organisation of neurons in the individual's brain.

This suggestion seems like original research not appropriate here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.115.49 (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Added "Finally, appeal to popularity fallacy (argumentum ad populum) is also used to describe arguments in which a majority opinion is taken as proof of an assertion's validity (i.e., if eighty-percent of people believe in God then there must be a God)." If anyone thinks this falls under a different category of (il)logic let me know but I first encountered the popular fallacy in this context. Marskell 11:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"Democratic fallacy"? Certainly not naturalistic fallacy. CSMR 18:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"moralistic fallacy"
Would be good, if we also could get an article on this one!

The Moralistic Fallacy is a flawed logical argument which assumes the way the world `ought` to be is the way the world is. Asside from the problems with decideing how hte world ought to be, it does not accept flaws in the world. Compare: Naturalistic Fallacy.

Moore's use versus common use
Every time I've seen "naturalistic fallacy" used, it hsa been to refer to the notion that, "This behavior is natural; therefore, this behavior is morally acceptable". This article seems to imply that this is incorrect in that the original user of the phrase meant something slightly different. What I'm wondering is whether anybody uses it in Moore's sense these days. I'm assuming that popular usage has drifted. Does Moore's usage still prevail among professionals? Or is the main definition given here mainly a historical one? Thanks, --William Pietri 19:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Moore's usage does prevail amongst professional academics. If they were to use "naturalistic fallacy" to mean the definition you have given, there would be a qualification stating that; otherwise, Moore's usage would be assumed. Well, in my experience, anyway. :) 129.234.4.76 14:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The part of this article on Moore is good, but this part about the Is-Ought meaning of the fallacy is very bad and will not help anyone.--A Philosopher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.115.49 (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the SEP, The Naturalistic Fallacy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/#NatFal} :

Moore famously claimed that naturalists were guilty of what he called the “naturalistic fallacy. ... ... ''The naturalistic fallacy is very poorly named indeed (a point also made by Bernard Williams; see Williams 1985: 121–122). For not only is it not especially a problem for naturalists, it is also not really a fallacy even if Moore is right that it embodies a mistake of some kind.'' 173.68.153.97 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Amended the last section but it still isn't good
I cleared up the section on other uses of the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" but I am not sure about it still. Are "is-ought" confusions properly called naturalistic fallacies and if so what is the difference between the naturalistic fallacy here and the reverse naturalistic fallacy? CSMR 18:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Logical fallacy" -> "Relevance fallacy"?
If the category is changed, should the intro be changed as well? Rfrisbietalk 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

they are sui generis
- should sui generis be pluralised?

No, suus can mean their as well as his or her. Seadowns (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Kant
I studied continental philosophy, ... we learned several times in many different courses that Kant was responsible for first identifying this fallacy. So what is going on here? -Abscissa 19:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Did they specifically say where Kant identified the fallacy? I think they might have been confusing the naturalistic fallacy (that talk of "good" or "yellow", etc. cannot be defined in terms of the natural) with the Is-ought problem (that we can't derive a moral "ought" from a descriptive "is").  But if this is the case, it can't be Kant who first identified it, since the Is-Ought problem actually is widely accepted as originating with David Hume, who predates Kant.
 * Just to make sure, I've done a bit of a Google search, but all I can find are people who accuse Kant of actually committing (unintentionally) the naturalistic fallacy. It would be unusual, but not impossible, that Kant would be the first to define naturalistic fallacy and then go on and actually commit the fallacy.
 * So from what I can tell your professors either made a mistake or are actually proponents of some non-mainstream view of how the naturalistic fallacy came about. If the latter, then it would be interesting to hear how they defend this (where in Kant they get this from, etc.).  FranksValli 00:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * People said Kant committed the fallacy by trying to derive a value judgment from factual statements, in his categorical imperative. I cannot myself see that this criticism is false. I am afraid I've never had much respect, let alone reverence, for Kant, but my views are no doubt of little value. (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please: Someone correct the typos! Here is one glaring one: "In using his categorical imperative Kant deduced that experience was necessary for their application." What does "their" refer to in this sentence? No, it is NOT obvious; if it were I would not have taken the time to post this. I would avoid the use of personal pronouns as much as possible; it is better to specifically name the referent each time, even at the risk of repetitiousness. The only time it is 100% safe is when there is no other possible referent. Frustrating, trying to read some of these articles.68.190.23.42 (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Principia Ethica
I've never read this, but it is a classic work in ethics, no? My question is why does it redirect here? Surely there was more to the book that pointing this fallacy out? Richard001 06:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there should be an article on it, but nobody's written one yet. In addition to its contents (which are indeed more than just what this article describes), it'd be worth including information about its impact, responses from critics of Moore's positions, etc. --Delirium 09:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Prodded it for now. Richard001 (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Appeal to nature
This section needs some work. E.g.:


 * This argument still holds a lot of weight, against the supposed "naturalistic fallacy".

Still holds a lot of weight, eh? According to the author of this entry, perhaps. But then, why is an author of an article in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, making such an evaluative claim? If this person really thinks it needs to be mentioned, I could suggest: "Some theologians still find Aquinas' argument persuasive". Some philosophers might agree with the definition, but very few would find the argument "Aquinas held that what is good, is what is natural, in that God created all things and they were good" very persuasive. Also, the phrasing, "the supposed 'naturalistic fallacy'" indicates the author's bias. I think a survey of scholars in the field of philosophy would likely show that the naturalistic fallacy is a widely accepted term and recognized as a fallacious form of reasoning. However, since no such survey has been done (at least none that I'm aware of), it doesn't belong in the article. A less slanted version might be, "...against what many philosophers have judged to be a fallacious method of reasoning". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.54.114 (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Utilitarianism
I'm unclear if Moore was be suggesting utilitarianism and similar ethical systems would be considered to suffer from this fallacy. Don't these say that something natural (pleasure, happiness etc) can be used to define what is good? Richard001 (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Appeal to nature article
This topic seems extremely similar to the appeal to nature article. Maybe they should be merged? Deamon138 (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think so too. - Soulkeeper (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

better quotation
Hi, since Moore defined the naturalistic fallacy in §10 and not §12, it would be better to cite this one, don't you think so? (§12 is an explaining example, but not the definition) Here the complete quote:


 * Yet a mistake of this simple kind has commonly been made about good. It may be true that all things which are good are also something else, just as it is true that all things which are yellow produce a certain kind of vibration in the light. And it is a fact, that Ethics aims at discovering what are those other properties belonging to all things which are good. But far too many philosophers have thought that when they named those other properties they were actually defining good; that these properties, in fact, were simply not other, but absolutely and entirely the same with goodness. This view I propose to call the naturalistic fallacy and of it I shall now endeavour to dispose. (Moore, PE § 10 ¶ 3)

-- 89.247.23.82 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Artificialistic Fallacy
Re the deleted section, 'Rubenarslan' asks "promotion"? No quotation of the alleged rebuttal. That's right there is no quotation. If Rubernarslan had asked for one this could have been provided. Does that automatically mean promotion? So anything that is stated without a quotation is a promotion. Fascinating. Regarding the alleged rebuttal. It is not alleged that it is a rebuttal. It IS a rebuttal, hence the title of the chapter The Artificialistic Fallacy'. Perhaps Rubernarslan should read the chapter instead of deleting details of the rebuttal of the naturalistic fallacy. Zanze123 (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing a misunderstanding
This page also supported the misunderstanding, which is conveyed very blatantly in the related article 'appeal to nature' that these clauses invalidate environmental and health science evaluation and promotion of natural products or methods. The pages have been cited disruptively in multiple online discussions, as valuing nature is 'apparently unscientific' and they seem to be fostering misnderstanding - facebook has its own mirror of WP's "appeal to nature" - [] A couple of smaller philosophy websites carry the confusion also.

I would welcome experienced philosophy editors' input on this matter. I would like to redirect "appeal to nature" to this article, which has a reasonable section on it, or relocate this section to replace the mistaken article. Lisnabreeny (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * By " health science evaluation and promotion of natural products or methods" I take it you mean so-called alternative medicine right? Please try and refrain from pushing your POV into the article, it's an important topic in philosophy and supposed misrepresentations in internet debates are irrelevant. 94.194.86.160 (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you believe that these clauses do invalidate valuation of 'alternative medicines'? (to use your prefered example) The page appeal to nature which you would like to restore is clearly badly sourced ungradeable and non-philosophical. I went through the proper deletion process for that page and it was redirected to a properly written section here, by two other experienced editors.
 * You are the one pushing POV here 99.194.86.160, without registering, without discussion, and i suspect without any real respect of the subject. Lisnabreeny (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The appeal to nature article contains more external links than most of the other fallacy of relevance articles, I can't fathom a reason why it would be better to redirect to a small section which doesn't contain any sources. Your edits have little to do with the fallacies themselves; have you even read Moore's Principia Ethica? 94.194.86.160 (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The appeal to nature article contains only POV links to 2 small private blogs, and a non philosophical, totally non-contextual article on cancer.

Regarding the edit: ~'who says is may not be fallacious" - [] "The naturalistic fallacy is very poorly named indeed (a point also made by Bernard Williams; see Williams 1985: 121-122). For not only is it not especially a problem for naturalists, it is also not really a fallacy even if Moore is right that it embodies a mistake of some kind. For it is highly uncharitable to charge anyone who advances the sorts of arguments to which Moore alludes as having committed a logical fallacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisnabreeny (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The edit was in regard to the appeal to nature fallacy section not the naturalistic fallacy; the article already covers the view of Williams who disputes the naturalistic fallacy's name. If however you believe the article's name should be changed you're welcome to open up a discussion on that. If your problem with the appeal to nature article is on sources then why is it better to redirect it to a section which contains no citations? Also why do you keep going on about my user status, there's no WP policy which mandates registering/logging-in. 94.194.86.160 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not be disingenious, your edit was within the 'appeal to nature' section but related to both terms. Here it is:
 * "'Some people use the phrase 'naturalistic fallacy' or 'appeal to nature' to characterize inferences of the form 'This behaviour is natural; therefore, this behaviour is morally acceptable' or 'This property is unnatural; therefore, this property is undesireable.' Such inferences are common in discussions of homosexuality and environmentalism. While such inferences may or may not be fallacious,'"
 * You removed or may not and edit summarised ~'who says it may not be fallacious". So Stanford Uni says, are you going to fix your edit?
 * To say that an argument "may not" be fallacious is silly. Fallacies are rarely "always wrong." A fallacious argument is any argument that is not valid -- and if a form of argument is valid, it is always valid. In that sense, the appeal to Nature is always fallacious, because it is never a valid argument. Whether or not it sometimes leads to truths is irrelevant to how fallacious it is. So, I say we remove that last sentence altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanHakimi (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This section is properly written, it could use sources but i am not contesting it yet specifically. The other article is rubbish, and its sources are rubbish.
 * Keep editing and telling me how wikipedia works without logging if you want ~ nothing unusual about that. Lisnabreeny (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's clear from your posts you have no genuine interest in trying to improve the article. You as much stated that your here because of some internet grievance. This type of agenda-driven POV pushing is what leads so many good editors away from the project. 94.194.86.160 (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I dont hold internet grievance thankyou, but i have been frank about the prevailing circumstances that lead me to examine and research these articles. You seem to be at least as much emersed in those arguments than i. I occasionally do argue respect for nature and 'natural properties' in fora, as do countless others, scientists, philosophers, lay persons. I am not particularly enthusiastic about 'alternative medicines' as you accused earlier. I am just aware, that proper use of philosophical reasoning, does not invalidate all statements: to the effect "natural is good here". Any experienced philosopher will be aware of that situation too. Lisnabreeny (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Examples, please
There is a lot of description of the fallacy, but no example of the fallacy in action. After reading the whole article, I'm still not sure what the fallacy is. Rwflammang (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2015 (
 * See my section below, entitled "Circularity?" where I describe an example that I think illustrates exactly why it is a fallacy. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I dare say I am a fool rushing in, but I shall try to answer what the core of the fallacy is. It is that, if you define a value in terms of some natural thing, you lose the ability to attribute, or deny, that value to that thing. For example, if you define social good as equality, it becomes merely a truism to say that equality is good, and merely a contradiction in terms to say that equality is not good. This would stultify discourse about values. (For this reason, I believe, R.M. Hare, at one period at least, used to introduce his pupils to the fallacy at the very beginning of their tuition with him, by setting them an essay that brought it out before he even met them.) Basically, I would maintain that to recognize that value-judgments are one category of things and factual statements are another category is also to accept the doctrine of the fallacy. I agree that this does not emerge very clearly from the article. I should be grateful if anybody wishes to comment on this. Seadowns (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction in article
The beginning of the article warns against confusing the Naturalistic Fallacy with the Appeal to Nature. It says: "The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with a fallacious appeal to nature, a mistaken claim that something is good or right because it is natural (or bad or wrong because it is unnatural)." However, in the section entitled "Appeal to Nature", the article quotes Professor Steven Pinker who says: "The naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found in nature is good." Thus, the quotation from Professor Pinker directly contradicts the warning at the beginning of the article. Should something be done about this? 2604:2000:C6A1:B900:F584:ECC5:541E:BAC7 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed it. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now deleted the appeal to nature para as out of place and confusing here. It has its own article. Pinker was just blatantly wrong in fact. We can't print everybody who gets it utterly wrong, even when they are professors.(Incidentally, I had to change from Esedowns, just as that came from Seadowns.) Liscaraig (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Sam Harris
Why, exactly, is Sam Harris's opinion on this page? He's irrelevant in academic philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD55:4C10:D0D:76FB:553F:5D79 (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Circularity?
The naturalistic fallacy and is-ought fallacy were introduced to me through a reading of... Either Bentham or Mill, can't remember. The author didn't support his utilitarian claim until the end of the reading, and when he did, he said that pleasure is good because it is desirable. However, this is not actually a natural fact about the world -- normally, words that end in "-able" describe a certain type of fact, like something is edible is something that is capable of being eaten. But something "desirable" is not something that is capable of being desired. Something "desirable" is something that ought to be desired. So the utilitarian has pretended to make a natural argument, that something is good because it has a certain natural quality (desirableness), but has in fact made a circular moral argument, that we ought to think of pleasure as a high moral good because we ought to think of it as a high moral good.

Would this be a helpful discussion for the article? I think it stands as a common, accessible example, both of people trying to get an "ought" from an "is," and of people trying to find a natural principle that explains morality. More importantly, I think the example illustrates just what is fallacious about these is-ought jumps, which might not be clear without such an example. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Naturalistic fallacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927014843/http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep04234247.pdf to http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep04234247.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927014959/http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep043348.pdf to http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep043348.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi.
Hi I'm new to wikipedia, but I understand what the problem is. Here's the fallacy. Man says thing is tasty. Man thinks thing must be good. Applies to medicine quite well, unfortunately. A medicine helps people out statistically by reducing suicide. It does so by turning them into zombies. Great. My mind is very dark, so you can see. I can't think of a better example though.

Not a fallacy. Medicine is great. Cures disease. People don't know how to use it properly and it's killing them, and I'd rather die of preventable disease. <<< I can see someone claiming this as a fallacy, even though it is not.

Entirely just hypothetical, no Freudian slips on the things I'm dealing with in family whatsoever. Feel free to sanitize my post, please do. I'm entirely in a dark place right now. Perfectly fine, it's getting resolved. I got her talking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:8309:C300:F045:636F:36F5:546E (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: PHIL 390 Contemporary Philosophy
— Assignment last updated by RudyCarnap (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)