Talk:Naturalistic fallacy

message: 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.109.90 (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who made the above statement, or when, but it is still true in April 2020. I chanced upon this article when searching WP for an explanation of moral decoupling, which I found in the title of an academic article Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger: How Moral Decoupling Enables Consumers to Admire and Admonish. This search led me to the section of this article titled Effects of putative necessities. I have to say, the first sentence of the section is remarkable in its opacity. I am (IMHO) very facile with the English language, and it took me several tries at reading the sentence to be able to make any sense of it. "The effect of beliefs about dangers on behaviors intended to protect what is considered valuable is pointed at as an example of total decoupling of ought from is being impossible." I finally determined that it means that 'beliefs about dangers' has an effect on a person's actions in attempting to protect something that person deems valuable, and that this effect is an example of the impossibility of totally decoupling of ought from is. Did I get that right? If we expect the above average intelligent reader of WP who has an interest in philosophy to get value from reading an article like this, the English should be plainer, and the sentence structure less byzantine. Paulmlieberman (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   That section was added in this edit by an IP address in 2018. The IP address is in Sweden, so English may be a second language of the person who wrote it. Often when I find incomprehensible prose on Wikipedia, I find it was written by someone for whom English is a second language (but of course some people in that category use perfectly clear English). I would recommend checking the cited source and rewriting the passage in accord with the cited source. Biogeographist (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Yes, the prose in this article is amazingly bad, but I also suspect that even if the prose were cleared up it would still be a bad article, full of loose thought. Seadowns (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: :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.
This suggestion seems like original research not appropriate here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.115.49 (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallacy of division 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Amended the last section but it still isn't good 

message: If the category is changed, should the intro be changed as well? Rfrisbietalk 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Logical fallacy" -> "Relevance fallacy"? 

message: - should sui generis be pluralised?
No, suus can mean their as well as his or her. 
Seadowns (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  they are sui generis 

message: I've never read this, but it is a classic work in ethics, no? My question is why does it redirect here? Surely there was more to the book that pointing this fallacy out? Richard001 06:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there should be an article on it, but nobody's written one yet. In addition to its contents (which are indeed more than just what this article describes), it'd be worth including information about its impact, responses from critics of Moore's positions, etc. --Delirium 09:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prodded it for now. Richard001 (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''[[Principia Ethica]]''

message: This section needs some work. E.g.: 
:This argument still holds a lot of weight, against the supposed "naturalistic fallacy".
Still holds a lot of weight, eh?  According to the author of this entry, perhaps.  But then, why is an author of an article in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, making such an evaluative claim?  If this person really thinks it needs to be mentioned, I could suggest: "Some theologians still find Aquinas' argument persuasive".  Some philosophers might agree with the definition, but very few would find the argument "Aquinas held that what is good, is what is natural, in that God created all things and they were good" very persuasive. Also, the phrasing, "the supposed 'naturalistic fallacy'" indicates the author's bias.  I think a survey of scholars in the field of philosophy would likely show that the naturalistic fallacy is a widely accepted term and recognized as a fallacious form of reasoning.  However, since no such survey has been done (at least none that I'm aware of), it doesn't belong in the article.  A less slanted version might be, "...against what many philosophers have judged to be a fallacious method of reasoning".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.54.114 (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal to nature 

message: The citation under 'References' is not from the Principia Ethica. It has no page or paragraph number, but I'm quite sure that it doesn't occur anywhere in the work. Does anyone know where it comes from?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbeek (talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote had grammatical, spelling and capitalization errors; I think perhaps it was a well-intentioned users summary of the salient point of the work. I've removed the quote as it would not belong in references even if it were accurate.Skomorokh incite 20:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I'm unclear if Moore was be suggesting utilitarianism and similar ethical systems would be considered to suffer from this fallacy. Don't these say that something natural (pleasure, happiness etc) can be used to define what is good? Richard001 (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Utilitarianism

message: This topic seems extremely similar to the appeal to nature article. Maybe they should be merged? Deamon138 (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so too. - Soulkeeper (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal to nature article 

message: Hi,
since Moore defined the naturalistic fallacy in §10 and not §12, it would be better to cite this one, don't you think so? (§12 is an explaining example, but not the definition) Here the complete quote:
:Yet a mistake of this simple kind has commonly been made about good. It may be true that all things which are good are also something else, just as it is true that all things which are yellow produce a certain kind of vibration in the light. And it is a fact, that Ethics aims at discovering what are those other properties belonging to all things which are good. But far too many philosophers have thought that when they named those other properties they were actually defining good; that these properties, in fact, were simply not other, but absolutely and entirely the same with goodness. This view I propose to call the naturalistic fallacy and of it I shall now endeavour to dispose. (Moore, PE § 10 ¶ 3)
-- 89.247.23.82 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  better quotation 

message: Re the deleted section, 'Rubenarslan' asks "promotion"? No quotation of the alleged rebuttal. That's right there is no quotation. If Rubernarslan had asked for one this could have been provided. Does that automatically mean promotion? So anything that is stated without a quotation is a promotion. Fascinating. Regarding the alleged rebuttal. It is not alleged that it is a rebuttal. It IS a rebuttal, hence the title of the chapter The Artificialistic Fallacy'. Perhaps Rubernarslan should read the chapter instead of deleting details of the rebuttal of the naturalistic fallacy. Zanze123 (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Artificialistic Fallacy

message: There is a lot of description of the fallacy, but no example of the fallacy in action. After reading the whole article, I'm still not sure what the fallacy is. Rwflammang (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2015 (
: See my section below, entitled "Circularity?" where I describe an example that I think illustrates exactly why it is a fallacy. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples, please 

message: The beginning of the article warns against confusing the Naturalistic Fallacy with the Appeal to Nature.  It says: "The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with a fallacious appeal to nature, a mistaken claim that something is good or right because it is natural (or bad or wrong because it is unnatural)."  However, in the section entitled "Appeal to Nature", the article quotes Professor Steven Pinker who says: "The naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found in nature is good."  Thus, the quotation from Professor Pinker directly contradicts the warning at the beginning of the article.  Should something be done about this?  2604:2000:C6A1:B900:F584:ECC5:541E:BAC7 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it.  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I have now deleted the appeal to nature para as out of place and confusing here. It has its own article. Pinker was just blatantly wrong in fact. We can't print everybody who gets it utterly wrong, even when they are professors.(Incidentally, I had to change from Esedowns, just as that came from Seadowns.) Liscaraig (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in article 

message: Why, exactly, is Sam Harris's opinion on this page? He's irrelevant in academic philosophy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD55:4C10:D0D:76FB:553F:5D79 (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sam Harris 

message: The naturalistic fallacy and is-ought fallacy were introduced to me through a reading of... Either Bentham or Mill, can't remember. The author didn't support his utilitarian claim until the end of the reading, and when he did, he said that pleasure is good because it is desirable. However, this is not actually a natural fact about the world -- normally, words that end in "-able" describe a certain type of fact, like something is edible is something that is capable of being eaten. But something "desirable" is not something that is capable of being desired. Something "desirable" is something that ought to be desired. So the utilitarian has pretended to make a natural argument, that something is good because it has a certain natural quality (desirableness), but has in fact made a circular moral argument, that we ought to think of pleasure as a high moral good because we ought to think of it as a high moral good.
Would this be a helpful discussion for the article? I think it stands as a common, accessible example, both of people trying to get an "ought" from an "is," and of people trying to find a natural principle that explains morality. More importantly, I think the example illustrates just what is fallacious about these is-ought jumps, which might not be clear without such an example. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circularity? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Naturalistic fallacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927014843/http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep04234247.pdf to http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep04234247.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927014959/http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep043348.pdf to http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep043348.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Hi I'm new to wikipedia, but I understand what the problem is.  Here's the fallacy.  Man says thing is tasty.  Man thinks thing must be good.  Applies to medicine quite well, unfortunately.  A medicine helps people out statistically by reducing suicide.  It does so by turning them into zombies.  Great.  My mind is very dark, so you can see.  I can't think of a better example though.  
Not a fallacy.  Medicine is great.  Cures disease.  People don't know how to use it properly and it's killing them, and I'd rather die of preventable disease.  <<<  I can see someone claiming this as a fallacy, even though it is not.  
Entirely just hypothetical, no Freudian slips on the things I'm dealing with in family whatsoever.  Feel free to sanitize my post, please do.  I'm entirely in a dark place right now.  Perfectly fine, it's getting resolved.  I got her talking.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:8309:C300:F045:636F:36F5:546E (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi.   

message: — Assignment last updated by RudyCarnap (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: PHIL 390 Contemporary Philosophy