|
|
Appeal to Nature vs. Naturalistic FallacyThe line between the Appeal to Nature Fallacy and Naturalistic Fallacy seem very thin. The Logically Fallacious site says they are different, but the site really doesn't explain how other than having to compare the forms ourselves (see: www.logicallyfallacious.c. . . The forms do look different, but are they?
On the logically fallacious site the forms are: Appeal to Nature : X is natural. Y is not natural. Therefore, X is better than Y. Naturalistic Fallacy: X is true according to nature. Therefore, X is morally right. I fail to see how either one can't be modified to the other, or that they are not in fact the same. Revised, or perhaps reduced incorrectly (as I see it), to show my (potential) vision problem: Appeal to Nature : X is natural. Therefore, X is good. Naturalistic Fallacy: X is nature. Therefore, X is moral. I fail to see the difference between nature and natural, or I see them as outside of value judgments. I do recognize that both moral and good can be subjective. This said, both seem to point to the is/ought problem, which to some is not a problem, but I'm not going there... Can someone clarify in a reduced form, if possible, as to how/why the two "forms" aren't "basically" the same. Thanks |
| asked on Thursday, Mar 19, 2015 09:47:38 AM by Emick | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.
In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
The naturalistic fallacy can be seen as a subset of the appeal to nature , or a more specific version that makes a moralistic value claim rather than the more generic claim of goodness. For example, saying that cocaine is good for you because it is natural is an example of the appeal to nature . This has nothing to do with morality, but with health. Saying that polyamorus behavior (having multiple sexual partners) is morally good because it seems to be inline with our natural tendencies is an example of the naturalistic fallacy . If one were to say that the first example was an example of the naturalistic fallacy , they would be incorrect. If one were to argue that the second was an example of the appeal to nature , they wouldn't be wrong (if they are equating moral actions with goodness) but they could be more accurate. Just as some dogs are Great Danes but not all dogs are Great Danes, some appeals to nature can be naturalistic fallacies, but not all appeals to nature are naturalistic fallacies.
|
| answered on Thursday, Mar 19, 2015 10:07:14 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
This was a bit muddy to me too, here is how I interpret it:
Appeal to nature: This is good for you because...... cites natural properties Naturalistic fallacy: Its human nature to do X, therefore X is OK |
| answered on Thursday, Aug 06, 2015 12:16:16 PM by mike |
Comments |
|
| |
