Accused of a fallacy? Suspect a fallacy? Ask Dr. Bo and the community!

Quickly register to comment, ask and respond to questions, and get FREE access to our passive online course on cognitive biases!
Register!

one moment please...



Moralistic Fallacy

(also known as: moral fallacy)

Description: When the conclusion expresses what is, based only on what one believes ought to be, or what isn’t is based on what one believes ought not to be.

This is the opposite of the naturalistic fallacy.

In his 1957 paper, Edward C. Moore defined the moralistic fallacy as the assertion that moral judgments are of a different order from factual judgements. Over the years, this concept has been simplified to deriving an “is” from an “ought.”

Logical Forms:

X ought to be.
Therefore, X is.

X ought not to be.

Therefore, X is not.


Example #1:

Adultery, as well as philandering, is wrong.

Therefore, we have no biological tendency for multiple sex partners.

Explanation: While, morally speaking, adultery and philandering may be wrong, this has no bearing on the biological aspect of the desire or need. In other words, what we shouldn’t do (according to moral norms), is not necessarily the same as what we are biologically influenced to do. Also note that moral judgments are more commonly stated as facts (e.g., “philandering is wrong”) than expressed as “oughts” (e.g., “philandering ought to be wrong”). This causes people to confuse the naturalistic and moralistic fallacies.

Example #2:

Being mean to others is wrong.

Therefore, it cannot possibly be part of our nature.

Explanation: While, morally speaking, being mean to others may be wrong, this has no bearing on the biological aspect of the desire or need. Again, what we shouldn’t do (according to moral norms), is not necessarily the same as what we are biologically influenced to do.

Exception: An argument can certainly be made that an ought is the same as an is, but it just cannot be assumed.

Note: The naturalistic and the moralistic fallacies are often confused with the appeal to nature fallacy. One reason, perhaps, is because what is “natural” is another way of saying what is, is. But with the naturalistic and the moralistic fallacies, the conclusion does not have to be based on what is “natural;” it just has to be based on what is. For example,

Men and women ought to be equal. Therefore, women are just as strong as men and men are just as empathetic as women.

This is another example of the moralistic fallacy but not an appeal to nature.

References:

Moore, E. C. (1957). The Moralistic Fallacy. The Journal of Philosophy, 54(2), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/2022356
Pinker, S. (2003). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Penguin.



Registered User Comments

epic
Friday, August 17, 2018 - 08:29:14 PM
is this a moralistic fallacy?

example: God ought not to let people die or catastrophical happen therefore God do not exist.

or There is evil in this world therefore God do not exist?

login to reply
3 replies
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...
 

Bo Bennett, PhD
Saturday, August 18, 2018 - 06:38:57 AM
No, because the ought and the is have to refer to the same thing. For example, "God ought not to allow suffering, therefore, allowing suffering can't be part of God's nature" would be a good example of this fallacy. The example you used could be valid argument if:

P1: A perfectly good God would not allow evil.
P2: Evil exists.
C. Therefore, God does exist, he is not perfectly good.

Most theists would reject premise 1, but the argument itself is not fallacious.

login to reply
 
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...
 

epic
Saturday, August 18, 2018 - 05:36:46 PM
@Bo Bennett, PhD: but don't you think they can't use that argument? I mean just because they think this is evil for allowing suffering, doesn't mean he does not exist. because evil or good do not decide whether a creator exist.

login to reply
 
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...
 

Bo Bennett, PhD
Saturday, August 18, 2018 - 07:42:02 PM
@epic: Sure the arguments you presented were nonsense (technically, non-sequiters), but not matching the moralistic fallacy. They skipped the premise stating that an all good God would not allow evil.

login to reply
 
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...

former student
Tuesday, September 20, 2016 - 09:46:37 AM
Your first example is wrong. We do have a biological (and therefore natural) need to pair bond. Oxytocin bonding proves we are biologically monogamous.

Obviously the moralistic fallacy still exists, but the adultery example is poor.

login to reply
2 replies
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...
 

Bo Bennett, PhD
Tuesday, September 20, 2016 - 10:03:40 AM
Hi Alex, remember that fallacies are not about what is true or not; it is about the form of the argument. Example #1 is still fallacious, therefore correct (correct in the sense that is demonstrates the fallacy). It does not matter what conclusions are reached. Anything that fits the "X is morally wrong, therefore X is unnatural" is fallacious. The conclusions I use in my examples are mostly all wrong anyways, thus the problems with fallacies.

As for your statement "Oxytocin bonding proves we are biologically monogamous," speaking as a social psychologist, that statement is problematic. First, at most, ocytocin is evidence for biological monogamy, certainly not proof of. Second, when biologists use the term "monogamy," that doesn't exclude multiple sex partners. For example, from one study

The term “monogamy” does not imply lifelong exclusive mating with a single individual. In fact, many birds form pair bonds over a season, raise their offspring together, and then select another partner the following season. For biologists, monogamy implies selective (not exclusive) mating, a shared nesting area, and biparental care.

Reference:

Young, L. J. (2003). The Neural Basis of Pair Bonding in a Monogamous Species: A Model for Understanding the Biological Basis of Human Behavior. National Academies Press (US). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK97287/

login to reply
 
1 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...
 

John A. Johnson
Friday, May 11, 2018 - 04:57:54 PM
@Bo Bennett, PhD:
Thank you, Bo, for this post on the moralistic fallacy. Those of us in evolutionary psychology who are sometimes accused of the naturalistic fallacy (usually undeservedly, in my experience) like to point out that the moralistic fallacy is just as fallacious as the naturalistic fallacy, and that some of the arguments against evolutionary psychology suffer from the moralistic fallacy.

I would like to make one suggestion. Even though Moore apparently coined the phrase "moralistic fallacy" in his 1957 publication, he was talking about something very different. He believed that the emotivist view that moral utterances are expressions of feeling rather than propositions was incorrect. In the article he says that moral statements are not that different from empirical statements in that both can refer to brute facts. Because he thought emotivists were wrong about morality, that led him to accuse them of a "moral fallacy." Ironically, Moore's likening of moral assertions and empirical statements means that one might accuse him of the moralistic fallacy in the sense it is used today.

A better reference for the modern origin of the moralistic fallacy might be the following article, which is sometimes cited by evolutionary psychologists:

Davis, B. D. (1970). The moralistic fallacy. Nature, 272, 390. DOI: 10.1177/016224397800300332.

login to reply
 
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...

Jacob
Friday, February 16, 2018 - 01:08:25 PM
In the example given if this fallacy...

Men and woman ought to be equal. Therefore men are just as strong as women and men are just as empathic as women.

Is this also a fallacy of equivocation, because “equal” in the first part means “equal rights and freedoms” and in the second part means “equal in physical characteristics”?

login to reply
1 reply
1 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...
 

Bo Bennett, PhD
Friday, February 16, 2018 - 01:13:20 PM
Could be. Again, one would need to ask the person making the argument what they mean by "equal".

login to reply
 
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...


Become a Logical Fallacy Master. Choose Your Poison.

Logically Fallacious is one of the most comprehensive collections of logical fallacies with all original examples and easy to understand descriptions; perfect for educators, debaters, or anyone who wants to improve his or her reasoning skills.

Get the book, Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett, PhD by selecting one of the following options:


Not Much of a Reader? No Problem!

Enroll in the Mastering Logical Fallacies Online Course. Over 10 hours of video and interactive learning. Go beyond the book!

Enroll in the Fallacy-A-Day Passive Course. Sit back and learn fallacies the easy way—in just a few minutes per day, via e-mail delivery.

Have a podcast or know someone who does? Putting on a conference? Dr. Bennett is available for interviews and public speaking events. Contact him directly here.


About Archieboy Holdings, LLC. Privacy Policy Other Books Written by Bo
 Website Design and Software Copyright 2018, Archieboy Holdings, LLC.