Talk:Naturalistic fallacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philosophy Portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Additional information:

Related task forces (core areas):
	Ethics
	Logic

It's interesting to note that [1] is just completely false--that's a definition of the "is-ought fallacy," due to Hume, not the naturalistic fallacy. Of course, they're very closely related conceptually, but they aren't the same thing. --Larry Sanger

It's alarming, actually. How could such a basic error crept into a (presumably) respectable reference book? --AV

They evidently didn't have a wiki. :-) --LMS

i like the st. johns wort reference- a patch work peice of work

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?

1 Fallacy of division
2 "moralistic fallacy"
3 Moore's use versus common use
4 Amended the last section but it still isn't good
5 "Logical fallacy" -> "Relevance fallacy"?
6 they are sui generis
7 Kant
8 Principia Ethica
9 Appeal to nature
10 References
11 Utilitarianism

[edit] 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, naturalistic fallacy 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 naturalistic fallacy in this context. Marskell 11:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] "moralistic fallacy"

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "Logical fallacy" -> "Relevance fallacy"?

If the category is changed, should the intro be changed as well? Rfrisbie^talk 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] they are sui generis

- should sui generis be pluralised?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] References

The citation under 'References' is not from the Principia Ethica. It has no page or paragraph number, but I'm quite sure that it doesn't occur anywhere in the work. Does anyone know where it comes from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbeek (talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The quote had grammatical, spelling and capitalization errors; I think perhaps it was a well-intentioned users summary of the salient point of the work. I've removed the quote as it would not belong in references even if it were accurate.Skomorokh ^incite 20:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)