Naturalistic fallacy

Definition

The naturalistic fallacy refers to the mistaken belief that one can derive ethical or moral conclusions directly from purely factual premises about the natural world. This concept challenges the assumption that 'is' statements (descriptive claims) can straightforwardly lead to 'ought' statements (normative claims) without additional reasoning or justification.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The naturalistic fallacy highlights the problematic leap from descriptive claims about human nature or the natural world to prescriptive ethical claims about how we ought to act.
2. Critics of ethical naturalism argue that it often fails to provide sufficient justification for moral claims derived from empirical observations.
3. This fallacy is important in discussions of morality because it underscores the complexities involved in connecting facts about the world with values and ethical obligations.
4. Philosophers like G.E. Moore have been influential in articulating the naturalistic fallacy, particularly through his critique of defining 'good' in terms of natural properties.
5. Understanding the naturalistic fallacy can help clarify debates around moral philosophy, especially concerning how we formulate ethical arguments based on scientific or empirical data.

Review Questions

• How does the naturalistic fallacy challenge our understanding of ethical reasoning?
  • The naturalistic fallacy challenges our understanding of ethical reasoning by emphasizing that one cannot simply move from factual statements about the world to normative conclusions about what should be done. It raises questions about whether our observations of human behavior or nature can dictate moral standards without further justification. This highlights the necessity of additional philosophical reasoning when making ethical claims.
• Discuss the implications of Hume's Law in relation to the naturalistic fallacy.
  • Hume's Law is closely related to the naturalistic fallacy as it articulates a fundamental distinction between descriptive and normative statements. The law suggests that you cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is', thus reinforcing the idea that ethical conclusions require more than just factual premises. This has significant implications for moral philosophy, as it challenges those who try to base ethical systems solely on empirical data without engaging in deeper normative analysis.
• Evaluate how understanding the naturalistic fallacy informs contemporary debates on ethical naturalism and moral realism.
  • Understanding the naturalistic fallacy is crucial for evaluating contemporary debates on ethical naturalism and moral realism because it brings attention to the potential pitfalls of deriving moral values solely from empirical evidence. While ethical naturalists argue that moral truths can be grounded in facts about human well-being, critics emphasize that such derivations risk oversimplifying complex moral issues. Moral realism, on the other hand, asserts that objective moral truths exist, yet must contend with the implications of the naturalistic fallacy to establish a sound connection between factual statements and moral claims.

Related terms

Hume's Law: A principle articulated by philosopher David Hume, which asserts that one cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is', emphasizing the gap between descriptive statements and prescriptive ethics.

Moral Realism: The philosophical view that there are objective moral facts and values, independent of human beliefs or attitudes, which can sometimes lead to a confusion with naturalistic arguments.

Ethical Naturalism: The view that ethical properties are reducible to natural properties, suggesting that moral truths can be grounded in natural facts, which is often critiqued for potentially falling into the naturalistic fallacy.