Informal Logic - Fallacies of Relevance - The Naturalistic Fallacy

[Petros Agapetos]

The Naturalistic Fallacy or Appeal to Nature is a logical fallacy that is committed whenever an argument attempts to derive what is good from what is natural. Originally it was considered a type of equivocation, wherein the word "good" was used in the sense of "pleasant" or "effective" in the premises, and in the sense of "moral" or "ethical" in the conclusion. Now it refers to any case in which someone refers to something as morally necessary simply because it is more natural.

The converse argument, where one assumes that whatever is good must be part of the natural order, is known as the "moralistic fallacy".
A trivial example:

P1. Apples are good to eat (meaning they are delicious or have nutritional value).
C. Therefore people who eat apples are better people (meaning more ethical).

A common Christian argument:

P1. Homosexuality is unnatural (meaning against the biological human drive to procreate or against the supposedly God-given purpose of sex).
C. Therefore homosexuality is wrong (ethically).
Note: the first premise here seems to be untrue, based on scientific investigation into the causes of homosexuality. The causes are not understood but natural biological processes are known to be factors in at least some cases.


Social Darwinism:
P1. Natural selection works because the weak/stupid/disabled die and the rest survive to reproduce.
C. The weak/stupid/disabled should therefore be allowed to die or be killed to keep the process going.

[Petros Agapetos]

As David Hume pointed out, knowing about the physical world never, by itself, tells you how to behave ethically. To behave ethically, you must not only know what is out there, but also have a value system that tells you what ought to be out there and what your place ought to be in making that happen. Knowing about the natural world is not enough to build a moral system.

The is-ought problem
The is-ought problem is a meta-ethical philosophical concept articulated by David Hume. Hume's argument states that prescriptive statements, also known as moral statements or "ought" statements, cannot be derived from purely descriptive ("is") statements. The implication of the concept: there is no way to justify morality based solely on observational evidence. This type of argument is a form of non sequitur in that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

In A Treatise of Human Nature, Hume states:

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason."

The is-ought problem is commonly interpreted to mean: we cannot infer what we morally ought to do from purely factual premises. We can't derive an "ought" from an "is." Further reading of Hume gives a different emphasis. Regarding willful murder, he says:

"The vice entirely escapes you as long as you consider the object. You will never find it until you turn your reflection into your own breast and find a sentiment of disapprobation that derives from you towards this action."

In other words, evil isn't a feature of willful murder but in a judgment arising in sentiment. However Hume criticizes those who mistake their own feelings about things like murder for intrinsic qualities like murder.

[Petros Agapetos]

Implications of the is-ought problem

This objection is a significant obstacle in using logical argument to demonstrate any ethic system based purely on evidence or science. Given the facts "Alice has food", "Bob is starving", "Alice could give the food to Bob", these statements do no in themselves imply "Alice should give food to Bob". Moral systems cannot be based entirely on evidence and reason. They must be abandoned or justified on other grounds such as axiomatic assumptions or non-rational means.

"If God does not exist, and evolution is true, then is would be immoral to help the weak, because this stunts the natural course of evolution by allowing the genes of the weak to continue in the gene pool."

If evolution is true, it does not follow we ought to follow any particular course of action.

Is-ought argument against divine obedience
Theists often assume the Bible is the word of God and that thinking implies God should be obeyed:

Holy books contain ethical standards. (descriptive)
Let us assume the holy book is God's true opinion on ethics. (descriptive)

However, from just these premises, we cannot automatically conclude we ought to obey God, because this is a prescriptive statement.

Once the Bible is established as God's word, it is normal for a believer to assume absolute morality exists. However, absolute morality needs to be established separately because God could claim that absolute morality exists without this actually being the case. In other words, God inspiring the Bible does not automatically imply the Bible is true or should be obeyed.

Criticism of Secular Morality
Secular morality refers to moral systems that are not based on God or the Bible. Christian apologetics have attacked secular ideas of absolute morality based on reason and evidence alone. Unless the is-ought problem is addressed, absolute morality cannot be justified with only reason and evidence. However, atheists may use an alternative ethical basis, such as intuition, acceptance of cultural norms or dogmatism.
False dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive statements
Separating statements into descriptive and prescriptive groups is arguably a false dichotomy

"Natural" can mean many things, and none of them are the same as "moral"
"Natural" as opposed to "artificial" is not the same as moral, or else we would be obliged to give up sanitation, penicillin, airplanes, modern agriculture, and other life-saving inventions as "immoral".

"Natural" as opposed to "supernatural" is not the same as moral. For one, many theists believe in both evil supernatural beings like demons or malevolent spirits and in good supernatural beings like gods or angels. For another, many people who believe in no supernatural phenomena at all have detailed moral codes.

"Natural" meaning "biological" as opposed to "cultural" is not the same as moral. Both altruism and psychopathy seem to have roots in human physiology. Similarly, cultural influences can be either good or bad.

[Petros Agapetos]

Moralistic fallacy

The moralistic fallacy is a type of argument wherein one assumes that one's own moral values are reflected in the natural world, or, alternatively, that because some course of action is good, reality must be such that that course of action is the simplest or most obvious. This fallacy is closely related to the "naturalistic fallacy".

The moralistic fallacy often appears to be the same as an appeal to consequences. The difference is that the appeal to consequences suggests that if it would be beneficial for something to be true, it must be true, whereas the moralistic fallacy starts with a value and asserts that because holding that value is good, it must be supported by a natural phenomenon.

An infamous example:
1. War, prejudice, and senseless violence are bad.
2. Therefore, war, prejudice, and senseless violence are artificial human inventions, not present in other species.

Theist example 1:
1. Faith in God is a virtue.
2. Therefore all human beings naturally believe in God (there are no atheists).

Theist example 2:
1. Belief in a divine plan gives more purpose and meaning to people's lives.
2. Evolution is either false or was orchestrated directly by God.
3. Prayer and meditation can have some psychological benefit, such as by reducing anxiety.
4. Therefore, prayer and meditation have whatever natural or supernatural effects the practitioners think they have.

Regarding evolution:
1. Complex organisms, especially intelligent ones such as humans, are more (ethically) valuable than other types of organism.
2. Therefore the "goal" of evolution is to produce more "highly evolved" creatures like humans out of "lower" organisms like bacteria.

Note: evolution, of course, has no "goal". Natural selection simply says that organisms and genes which are not good enough at producing copies of themselves will die out and/or be displaced by competitors. It is indifferent to human judgments regarding which organisms are "more complex" or ethically better.

[Petros Agapetos]

Typical defenses of moralistic fallacies

Someone who is caught making a moralistic fallacy will almost never defend the reasoning itself. They will usually use one of these tactics:

1. Actually admitting the mistake (most common when there is clear evidence against the conclusion, and on occasions when emotions do not run high).
2. Changing arguments or changing subjects.
3. Defending the original value rather than the reasoning.

If they choose to defend the original value, they will usually talk about how necessary the value is and accuse their opponent of undermining that value. They will accuse their opponent of using an (equally fallacious) contrapositive argument: "You are saying that violence is naturally part of our instincts because you want to prove that War X should continue." or "You are saying that we evolved through an unguided process, so you believe that there's no purpose or meaning to be found in life." These arguments are naturalistic fallacies that many people would never fall for, but someone who uses a moralistic fallacy may not recognize this because a) they probably identify good and natural as being closely related, and b) they assume that other people share the same viewpoint.

There are two ways to proceed against this type of defense. One is to continue to point out that the value mentioned in the premise may in fact be very important, but note that the conclusion still does not follow from that premise. The other is to go along with the change of subject and actually attack that value directly, if it is a value (such as faith) that is dubious and open to criticism.

Either way, moralistic fallacies can be some of the most difficult to expose, because they often involve a strong identification between a moral code and a particular set of beliefs. The person who uses the fallacy may interpret an attack on the argument as an attack on their entire system of values. This is particularly true for theists who have spent their entire lives believing in some form of natural law governing the universe, handed down by God, and for those with New Age or pagan beliefs who (sometimes literally) worship nature.

[Petros Agapetos]

Do you find this information about the naturalistic fallacy useful?

[Petros Agapetos]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...ical+Fallacies
Logical Fallacies Explained and Debunked!

[Petros Agapetos]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...02#post4108502
Logical Fallacies Explained and Debunked

[Petros Agapetos]

bump

[Petros Agapetos]

Validity describes the structure of an argument: for instance:

1. If P then Q
2. P
Therefore:
3. Q

The above argument is valid because it is impossible for (1) and (2) to be true yet (3) false!

Whether an argument is sound or not depends on the content of the argument: P and Q.

Formal fallacies are fallacies of structure. Informal fallacies are fallacies of content.

1. All people from Italy are blue.
2. Mario is from Italy
Therefore
3. Mario is blue.

This argument is valid in form. What makes it unsound is that it does not comport with reality. It is a factual matter.