Talk:Naturalistic fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
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?
Contents |
[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)
[edit] "Logical fallacy" -> "Relevance fallacy"?
If the category is changed, should the intro be changed as well? Rfrisbietalk 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] they are sui generis
- should sui generis be pluralised?
[edit] Kant
I studied continental philosophy, ... we learned several times in many different courses that Kant was responsible for first identifying this fallacy. So what is going on here? -Abscissa 19:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Did they specifically say where Kant identified the fallacy? I think they might have been confusing the naturalistic fallacy (that talk of "good" or "yellow", etc. cannot be defined in terms of the natural) with the Is-ought problem (that we can't derive a moral "ought" from a descriptive "is"). But if this is the case, it can't be Kant who first identified it, since the Is-Ought problem actually is widely accepted as originating with David Hume, who predates Kant.
- Just to make sure, I've done a bit of a Google search, but all I can find are people who accuse Kant of actually committing (unintentionally) the naturalistic fallacy. It would be unusual, but not impossible, that Kant would be the first to define naturalistic fallacy and then go on and actually commit the fallacy.
- So from what I can tell your professors either made a mistake or are actually proponents of some non-mainstream view of how the naturalistic fallacy came about. If the latter, then it would be interesting to hear how they defend this (where in Kant they get this from, etc.). FranksValli 00:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
