The naturalistic fallacy

Definition

The naturalistic fallacy is a philosophical concept that argues against deriving moral values or ethical judgments solely from natural facts or states of affairs. It suggests that just because something is natural does not automatically mean it is morally right or good, challenging the assumption that nature inherently defines moral truths.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The term was coined by philosopher G.E. Moore in his work 'Principia Ethica', where he argued that it is a mistake to equate natural properties with moral properties.
2. The naturalistic fallacy highlights the distinction between facts and values, emphasizing that understanding how things are does not dictate how they should be.
3. This concept plays a crucial role in discussions about environmental ethics, where proponents argue that just because nature operates in a certain way does not mean humans should follow suit.
4. Critics of the naturalistic fallacy often argue that it overlooks the complexities of human experience and the interplay between nature and moral reasoning.
5. Recognizing the naturalistic fallacy encourages deeper ethical analysis, prompting individuals to question assumptions about what is considered 'natural' and how it relates to morality.

Review Questions

• How does the naturalistic fallacy differentiate between descriptive and prescriptive statements in moral philosophy?
  • The naturalistic fallacy emphasizes that descriptive statements, which describe how things are in nature, do not inherently support prescriptive statements about how things ought to be. This distinction is vital because it illustrates that understanding natural facts does not automatically provide a basis for moral judgments. For example, just because certain behaviors occur in nature doesn't mean they are ethically acceptable or should be imitated by humans.
• Discuss the implications of the naturalistic fallacy for debates on environmental ethics and conservation efforts.
  • The naturalistic fallacy has significant implications for environmental ethics as it warns against assuming that natural processes or behaviors justify human actions. For instance, just because predation occurs in nature does not mean humans should engage in harmful practices towards others. This critical perspective urges conservationists and ethicists to carefully consider the moral dimensions of their actions and policies, rather than relying solely on what is deemed 'natural'.
• Evaluate how understanding the naturalistic fallacy can enhance our approach to ethical dilemmas in modern society.
  • Understanding the naturalistic fallacy enhances our approach to ethical dilemmas by encouraging us to critically analyze assumptions linking nature to morality. By recognizing that not all natural occurrences warrant moral approval, we become more adept at evaluating complex situations where ethical considerations are required. This analytical framework pushes us to seek out informed, reasoned arguments in our decision-making processes, rather than defaulting to traditional views on what is 'natural' as justification for our choices.

Related terms

Moral Realism: The view that there are objective moral facts that exist independently of human beliefs or perceptions.

Is-Ought Problem: The philosophical issue raised by David Hume which points out that one cannot logically derive prescriptive statements (what ought to be) from descriptive statements (what is).

Ethical Naturalism:

The belief that ethical truths can be understood through scientific inquiry and natural facts about the world.