Talk:Moralistic fallacy

message: I undid the revision to reinstate, as an example of naturalistic fallacy, the statement Adultery is acceptable because people can naturally want more sexual partners.  Acceptable to whom?  Unless one cites findings, in natural science, showing that this is a natural law, this is indeed a naturalistic fallacy.  Whether or not adultery is acceptable—a moral question—appears to be cultural and personal.  One's own answer to this question emerges through an intellectual framework interpreting and placing relative values on occurrences.  That adultery is acceptable does not appear to be a law of nature universally imposed.
Kusername (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  11 Jan 2011 undoing of 27 Nov 2010 revision: 

message: Please, do not revise statements in the article to add inductions and positivistic assertions, such as, about the moralistic fallacy, It wrongly presumes that what ought to be — that which is deemed preferable — will have some bearing on what is or what naturally occurs.
No, it does not "wrongly" presume that—it simply presumes that.  The presumption could be either wrong or right.  It is a logical fallacy because it presumes that it is necessarily right—deducing upon an induced general law lacking logical necessity—not because it is necessarily wrong.  We lack metaphysical knowledge to know that morality has no bearing on the natural world.
Kusername (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We may lack the metaphysical knowledge to know that morality has no bearing on the natural world, but we possess paleontological knowledge that strongly suggests Earth existed for billions of years before the appearance of any organism capable of having morality. Unless morality has a metaphysical existence independent of organisms capable of having morality (that is, organisms capable of functioning as moral agents), then if morality bears on the natural world, this effect is recent, and it should be possible to identify features in the natural world that came into being with the appearance of moral agents, which were not there before. Given that geologists and paleontologists have not identified any dramatic changes in natural processes that coincided with the first appearance of morality, it would seem safe to conclude, at least provisionally, that if morality bears on the natural world, its effects must be subtle, perhaps negligible. Of course humans, informed by their morality, have such enormous impacts on the natural world that some scientists claim we are now in the Anthropocene epoch, but these impacts are adequately explained by physical processes (such as the greenhouse effect enhancement from our carbon dioxide emissions) with no need to appeal to metaphysics. That is, our morality does bear indirectly on the natural world via a long causal chain (e.g., a person sees it as morally acceptable to fly on holiday, thereby generating greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn contribute slightly to man-made climate change), but morality is bearing primarily on human behavior, which then has consequences for the natural world. To claim that morality somehow reaches out and directly influences the natural world would seem counter to everything we observe. Granted, we haven't absolutely ruled out the possibility, much as we haven't ruled out the existence of Russell's teapot and the Flying spaghetti monster, but we can reasonably regard these possibilities as so improbable that they are all but impossible. --Teratornis (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logic is difficult for humans 

message: Get a better reference than him. He is a racist mouthpiece. He has no business or credentials to discuss psychology or philosophy. 
Steve Sailer majored in economics, history, and management at Rice University (BA, 1980).
He earned an MBA from UCLA in 1982 with two concentrations: Finance and Marketing.
Sailer is the founder of an online discussion forum called Human Biodiversity Discussion Group, whose members he has described as "top scientists and public intellectuals".
During the United States presidential election, 2004, Sailer estimated that based on the intelligence tests from military records of candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry, Bush probably had a higher IQ by about 4 IQ points.
https://www.voat.co/v/Niggers/comments/865003
https://voat.co/v/Niggers/comments/944092
While I am not familiar with Sailer, he is currently used as a source in the definition of the article and removing him will gut it. Do you have a better source in mind? Dimadick (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Sailer is an idiot