Talk:Naturalistic fallacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the Philosophy WikiProject, an attempt at creating a standardised, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use Philosophy resource. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles.

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

[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.

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)

[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)