Moralistic fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The moralistic Fallacy is the opposite of the naturalistic fallacy. It says that because something is morally wrong, it could not be a part of human nature or that what ought to be, is. The naturalistic fallacy says that what is, is what ought to be. The fallacy was coined by Bernard Davis in response to calls for ethical guidelines to control the study of what could allegedly become "dangerous knowledge."
Sometimes a theory is rejected with a reference to the danger of misuse. In doing so, one fails to differentiate sufficiently clearly between its epistemological value and its practical value, or between the moral, value-free knowledge and – in consideration of moral valuations – the potentially negative consequences of the knowledge. From a perspective of scientific theory, the accuracy of a theory is of primal importance, not its practical value, its origin or history of use. No theory is protected against misuse, nor can a theory be falsified by misuse. Both misuse as well as renunciation of knowledge can have disadvantageous consequences.
[edit] Examples
Moralistic
- Because warfare is wrong and tragic, it cannot be part of human nature.
- Since it is right to treat men and women as equals, the sexes must be biologically equal as well.
Naturalistic
- Because men might be predisposed to want more sexual partners, it is acceptable for them to engage in adultery.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- "The Moralistic Fallacy," Bernard Davis, Nature, 1978 Mar 30.[1]
- Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, Satoshi Kanazawa (2007)
