Naturalistic Fallacy

Definition

The naturalistic fallacy is the logical error of deriving an 'ought' statement (a claim about what should be the case) from 'is' statements (claims about what the case is). It involves improperly inferring prescriptive conclusions from purely descriptive premises.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The naturalistic fallacy was famously identified by the philosopher G.E. Moore in his work 'Principia Ethica'.
2. It is a logical fallacy because it attempts to derive normative conclusions (what ought to be) from purely descriptive premises (what is the case).
3. The naturalistic fallacy is closely related to the fact-value distinction, which holds that statements of fact and statements of value are fundamentally different types of claims.
4. Ethical naturalists are often accused of committing the naturalistic fallacy by trying to ground moral facts in natural facts.
5. Moral relativists may also be seen as falling prey to the naturalistic fallacy by deriving 'oughts' from 'is' statements about cultural or individual moral beliefs.

Review Questions

• Explain how the naturalistic fallacy relates to the fact-value distinction.
  • The naturalistic fallacy is closely tied to the fact-value distinction, which holds that statements of fact (what is the case) and statements of value (what ought to be the case) are fundamentally different types of claims. The naturalistic fallacy occurs when one tries to derive prescriptive 'ought' statements from purely descriptive 'is' statements, thereby improperly bridging the gap between facts and values. This is considered a logical error because it is not possible to validly infer normative conclusions from solely descriptive premises.
• Describe how moral relativism and ethical naturalism may be accused of committing the naturalistic fallacy.
  • Moral relativists, who believe that moral or ethical statements are not objectively true or false but rather depend on the individual or cultural context, may be seen as committing the naturalistic fallacy. They may derive 'oughts' from 'is' statements about what individuals or cultures believe to be morally right or wrong. Similarly, ethical naturalists, who try to ground moral facts in natural facts that can be studied by science, can be accused of the naturalistic fallacy. By attempting to equate moral properties with natural properties, they may be improperly inferring prescriptive conclusions from purely descriptive premises.
• Analyze the significance of the naturalistic fallacy in the context of moral philosophy and ethical reasoning.
  • The naturalistic fallacy is a critical issue in moral philosophy because it challenges the ability to derive normative ethical conclusions from purely factual premises. If the naturalistic fallacy is valid, it would undermine many approaches in moral philosophy that seek to ground 'oughts' in 'is' statements, such as ethical naturalism. It would also call into question the ability to rationally justify moral claims beyond simply describing what people believe or what occurs naturally. The naturalistic fallacy thus raises profound questions about the foundations of ethics and the relationship between facts and values, which are central debates in moral philosophy and the study of ethics.

Related terms

Fact-Value Distinction:

The philosophical view that there is a clear separation between statements of fact (what is the case) and statements of value (what ought to be the case).

Moral Relativism:

The position that moral or ethical statements are not objectively true or false, but rather depend on the individual, culture, or context.

Ethical Naturalism:

The view that moral facts and properties can be reduced to or equated with natural facts and properties that can be studied by the natural sciences.