Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia
The naturalistic fallacy is the mistake of defining “good” in terms of natural qualities or assuming that “what is” naturally occurs, therefore “what ought to be”. Introduced by G.E. Moore, the term describes the error of equating facts about the world with moral values or judgments. For example, saying “breastfeeding is natural, therefore it is the only way mothers should feed their children” commits this fallacy by inferring an “ought” from an “is”.
Key aspects of the naturalistic fallacy:
Definition:
It’s an attempt to define the ethical term “good” using only natural properties, such as “pleasant” or “desired,” or a descriptive fact about the world.
Hume’s Law:
This relates to the idea that you cannot derive a statement about what “ought to be” solely from a statement about what “is”.
G.E. Moore’s Argument:
Moore argued that “good” is a simple, unanalyzable property that cannot be defined by other natural properties. His “open-question argument” suggests that if you can ask “is X good?” after defining X as a natural quality, then X isn’t truly “good”.
Example:
The Fallacy:
“A mother is naturally designed to nurture her children, therefore she ought to do so and should not use formula.”
Why it’s a fallacy:
This statement moves from a factual observation about nature to a moral prescription. It incorrectly suggests that the natural way of doing something (like feeding children) is inherently the correct way to do it.
Distinction from “Appeal to Nature”:
- While related, the naturalistic fallacy is specifically about defining “good” using natural terms.
- The appeal to nature fallacy is a broader argument that claims something is inherently good because it is natural, or bad because it is unnatural.