Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies (Academic Edition) (Dr. Bo's Critical Thinking Series)

by Bo Bennett

Naturalistic Fallacy (also known as: is-ought fallacy, arguing from is to ought, is-should fallacy) Description: When the conclusion expresses what ought to be, based only on what is, or what ought not to be, based on what is not. This is very common, and most people never see the problem with these kinds of assertions due to accepted social and moral norms. This bypasses reason and we fail to ask why something that is, ought to be that way. This is the opposite of the moralistic fallacy. A more traditional use of the naturalistic fallacy is committed when one attempts to define “good” as anything other than itself. The philosopher G. E. Moore (1873-1958) argued that it is a mistake to try to define the concept “good” in terms of some natural property (thus, the name “naturalistic”). Defining the concept “good,” Moore argued, is impossible since it is a simple concept; a concept that cannot be defined in terms of any other concept. Not all philosophers agree that this is a fallacy. Some have argued that ethical terms, such as “good” can be defined in nonethical natural terms. They believe that ethical judgments directly follow from facts, i.e., it is possible to argue from a fact to a value. Logical Forms: X is. Therefore, X ought to be. X is not. Therefore, X ought not to be. Example #1: Homosexuality is / ought to be morally wrong (moral property) because it is not normal (natural property). or Homosexuality is not normal (natural property); therefore, it is / ought to...