Moralistic fallacy

[[File:Wishful Thinking.jpg|right|thumb|165px|"Dick's going on a straw-ride<br>Just as the grown folks do;<br>And if his horse is little,<br>It's strong and willing too!"<br>(From {{wpl|Mary Mapes Dodge}})]]{{logicnav}}

{{cquote|The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.|||[[Louis Pasteur]]<ref>''Louis Pasteur, Free Lance of Science'' by René J. Dubos (1950) Little, Brown.</ref>{{rp|376}}}}

A '''moralistic fallacy''' (closely related to '''wishful thinking''') is a [[logical fallacy]] that occurs when someone asserts that what is Moral, or the way things ''should'' be, is in fact how they naturally ''are'', and that anything that is "immoral" is "unnatural".

While [[cognitive dissonance]] (e.g. as in the fable of {{wpl|The Fox and the Grapes|''The Fox and the Grapes''}}) describes the suffering experienced when holding an internally inconsistent [[worldview]], utilizers of the moralistic fallacy solve this discomfort by simply overriding everything with how it ''should'' be, case closed — ta-daa, suddenly the world adds up.

It is an inversion of the [[naturalistic fallacy]]. Wishful thinking is often synonymous with [[denial]].

The fallacy is an [[appeal to consequences]] and an [[informal fallacy]].

==Alternative names==
*Appeal to Hope
*Ought-Is
*Wishful Thinking

==Explanation==
Wanting something to be true is irrelevant to its truth.  We generally want the world to be a Moral and Just place, but the harsh reality is that the world isn't naturally Moral.  Just as [[David Hume]] pointed out that we can't derive what is Moral from the "natural order" alone, we ''also'' can't derive the "natural order" from what we (often arbitrarily) determine to be Moral.  What we have a moral imperative to do is not strictly tied to how the world naturally works, and many, many bad things that people do are in fact ''extremely'' natural.  Morality isn't some intrinsic force in the universe, but rather, Morality is Humanity working to overcome our own more self-destructive tendencies.

Don't believe us?  Toddlers can't will cookies into existence; [[Godwin's law|6 million Jews' belief in human rights didn't seem to do much]].

==Origin==
The term "moralistic fallacy" was coined by [[biologist]] {{wpl|Bernard Davis (biologist)|Bernard Davis|,}} who was upset about how, in his opinion at least, biology was unable to do significant research into behavioral [[genetics]].<ref>[http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/200604071_issue_073_article_3.pdf Neo-Lysenkoism, IQ, and the press]</ref> The reason being that on one side, [[racists]] and the like are always searching for some way to hide their [[bigotry]] behind science; "we aren't racist, we're [[race realist]] and have this poorly defined study to back us up!" It's to the point where if someone starts up about group genetics and behavior/intelligence/whatever, 11 times out 10 you are going to hear a racist diatribe. Never mind that if any "race" is the "master", it's the ''mixed'' race;<ref>[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20301855/ Why mixed-race people are perceived as more attractive, NIH]</ref> this is pretty much the '''reason''' that most [[species]] reproduce through [[sex]] and not [[cloning]].

Counter to this, and the focus of Davis's ire, are [[progressives]] and equal rights activists who insist that because bigotry is wrong, anything that could possibly be used to support the idea that any differences between people are inherent rather than social or environmental must ''also'' be wrong, including behavioral genetics. It certainly didn't help that the [[Francis Galton|same guy]] who founded behavioral genetics is more famous for creating [[eugenics]]. So while various racists commit moralistic fallacies with regards to biology and genetics, progressives may commit the moralistic fallacy and impede research whether it's for the "right" reasons or not.

==Examples==
* [[PETA]] and other [[animal rights]] activists have argued that [[milk]] is less healthy than [[alcohol]],<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20160909225155/https://www.peta.org/blog/got-beer-ad-madison-wisconsin/ Is Beer Healthier Than Milk?] (September 7, 2016) ''PETA'' (archived from September 9, 2016).</ref> and even causes [[autism]] in the unborn.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20131207041217/https://www.peta.org/features/got-autism-learn-link-dairy-products-disease/ Got Autism? Learn About the Link Between Dairy Products and the Disease] ''PETA'' (archived from December 7, 2013).</ref>
* To many [[vegan]]s, eating meat is an immoral act.  Some will go so far as to claim that [[humans]] don't naturally eat or even desire meat or that our digestive systems didn't evolve to handle it, which if true would cause meat eaters to be ''emaciated'' rather than obese, though in fairness, humans really didn't evolve to eat an ''unlimited'' quantity of meat. Most people really would be a tad healthier if they ate a bit less, even if they don't have to cut meat out of their diet entirely.
* Inversely, [[Carnivore diet|carnivore diet]]ers on the (alt-)right claim that humans, especially men, don't naturally eat plants or that our digestive systems can't handle them, at least not noticeably better than they can handle meat, which if true in the strictest sense would cause male plant eaters to have low testosterone from emaciation rather than digesting plants properly (although they also claim that soy isoflavones are secretly human estrogen without accounting for why a plant would naturally have a human hormone). Apart from the comparison being unfair because an animal digestive system can't use all the same pieces to handle both plants and meat if it has pieces for handling both, the claim mocks men who hold different values. The truth is that Humans are some of the most adaptable creatures on the planet, and even with relatively primitive technology, can survive in just about every terrestrial biome on the planet, and that includes the differences in diet.  Imagine if there was a species of Rhino that could survive in deserts, forests, mountains, swamps, tundra, jungle, flood plains, grasslands, and also survive on a diet that's almost entirely meat, or a diet almost entirely plant-based, all in the same species that was still capable of interbreeding rather than becoming separate species.
* Some [[feminist]]s may go beyond merely saying men and women ought to have equal opportunities in finding a way to contribute to society, to asserting that there are no differences in the first place, or that [[Female supremacy|women do everything better]].
* [[Infidelity]] is viewed as immoral by many, and so it must not be natural to desire other people than one's monogamous partner. Being attracted to multiple people at the same time is viewed as a form of deviance, rather than a natural desire of humans. Likewise, just because it may be natural to desire someone other than your spouse does not mean that cheating on your spouse is in any way moral.
* Some [[fundamentalists]]' statements about [[Darwinism]] follow this thinking, as does [[Lysenkoism|Soviet Communism]], oddly.  
* [[Homosexuality]] deserves extra mention. Fundies will view it as immoral, therefore homosexuals can't ''naturally'' be attracted to each other; there must be some nefarious force or group corrupting people. A cult of homosexuals who recruit others? Satan? Hollywood Liberals? Regardless, it "can't" be an immutable characteristic of people, so it ''must'' be "curable" with [[Conversion therapy]] or other BS. Oddly, the “immutability” of people’s homosexuality is also a moralistic fallacy: If the mutability of people’s homosexuality leads to fundies trying various BS to “cure” homosexuals which is immoral, at least these homosexuals ''must'' have been born that way.
* The vast bulk of [[alternative medicine]] (especially of the [[noble savage|"indigenous"]] variety) follows this line of logic.

The concern has been that [[evidence]] contradicting such [[moral]] values will lead to people [[appeal to nature|justifying this behavior, since it is "natural"]]. While understandable, this has led to instances in which research that contradicts them caused people uncomfortable with it to engage in [[denialism]]. In the realm of [[religion]] it can take the form, "[[Vicarious autotheism|God is good, therefore He does not support X, which I view as bad]]." Alternately, it is possible for an [[atheist]] to make the opposite fallacious argument (as they are alleged to by some [[theist]]s) that "I view [[God]] (or His commands) to be bad, therefore He does not exist."

An example of wishful thinking is shown as below:

* [[singularity|Singularists]], [[transhumanism|transhumanists]] and some futurologists that predict a cure for aging, [[mind uploading]], or anything that hints technology-based biological or mental [[immortality]], often assume that such technologies are 100% possible and are within the reach of current science, and will arrive before or at the time when they reach their 70s or 80s, even though the actual trend is that the growth of life expectancy is hitting a ceiling and technological progress in most areas of science and technology(including medicine, as shown by Eroom's law) is decelerating and longevity research is only progressing slowly.

===In public policy===
Wishful thinking may characterize popular consensus on other important public policy issues.  For example, American space policy is now in the grip of the belief that private firms will finance the exploration of outer space. For a while this seemed unlikely, but felt good because it offered an escape from spending the large sums necessary for human space exploration. (However, while space exploration is expensive, it forms a much smaller part of the national budget than most people realize: [[NASA]]'s share in the [[US]] budget comes to around 0.6%, down from around 5% during the height of the Apollo program.)

It should be stated, however, that this example may in fact become a reality. [[Elon Musk]]'s {{wpl|SpaceX}} appears on the verge of bringing reliable, ''reusable'' rockets into the mainstream called {{wpl|SpaceX Starship||,}} promising to cut the cost of space missions by orders of magnitude.<ref>[http://www.space.com/32520-spacex-rocket-landing-step-to-stars-elon-musk.html SpaceX's successful landings] Space, April 8, 2016</ref> Other firms, including {{wpl|Planetary Resources}} and {{wpl|Deep Space Industries||,}} were founded with the intent to (eventually) mine [[asteroid]]s and ship the products around the [[Solar System]]; even if reusable rockets become commonplace, building space hardware without having to rocket raw materials out of a gravity well is hoped to be substantially cheaper.

If this actually happens, we'll need a new example. Humans being the delirious life forms we are, though, there should be no shortage.

===Positive outcome bias===
Even qualified [[peer review]]ers were more likely to rate a study favourably if it appeared to give positive results rather than if the results appeared neutral or negative. <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21098355 Academic Referee Bias]</ref>

{{Anchor|Positive thinking}}

==Positive thinking versus wishful thinking==
Wishful thinking is not the same thing as "'''positive thinking'''", or the idea that by thinking positively, one will experience better outcomes. Thinking positively can help a person achieve a particular goal, in much the same way that thinking negatively can be a demotivating factor; thinking positively can conceivably help someone to maintain their focus on getting some task done. ''Wishful'' thinking, on the other hand, is more about changing [[reality]] to match one's perceptions, or thinking that reality would be [[Law of Attraction|swayed by what you think]]. 

An apt analogy can be found in [[medicine]]. Thinking positively about a course of treatment can improve a patient's outlook on life, helping the patient to feel better and maybe even having a [[placebo effect]]. Meanwhile, wishful thinking would entail [[denialism|denying]] that one had an illness, or that God would cure it, or that it will simply get better on its own, and assuming it would go away just because of that.

The [[law of attraction]] takes the idea of positive thinking one step further into [[pseudoscience]] by claiming that thinking positively about something is sufficient to cause it to happen.

==See also==
{{collist|2|
*[[Appeal to consequences]]
*[[Appeal to emotion]]
*[[Appeal to nature]]: What is natural is good
*[[Argument from desire]]
*[[Escape to the future]]
*[[Faith]]
*[[Hume's law]]: The is/ought problem
*[[Law of Attraction]]
*[[Magical thinking]]
*[[Name it and claim it]], a.k.a., the prosperity gospel
*[[Solferino fallacy]]: War is natural, and therefore good.
*[[Willful ignorance]]
*[[Wishful thinking]]
*[[Word magic]]
}}

==External links==
*{{wpa|Wishful thinking}}
* [http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/moralistic/ Logical Fallacies.info] on the moralistic fallacy.
* [https://religions.wiki/index.php/Moralistic_fallacy Religions Wiki] on the moralistic fallacy.
*[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wishthnk.html Fallacy Files] on wishful thinking
*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm#Wishful%20Thinking Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] on wishful thinking
*[http://skepdic.com/wishfulthinking.html Skeptic's Dictionary] on wishful thinking

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Assessing pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Denialism]]
[[Category:Informal fallacies]]

Categories: Assessing pseudoscience, Denialism, Informal fallacies