Naturalistic Fallacy 1: The Conflation of Is and Ought
The naturalistic fallacy is a type of logical fallacy which occurs when an individual makes a conclusion about what ought to be based on what is. This fallacy is often referred to as the ‘is-ought’ fallacy, due to the conflation of the two concepts. The naturalistic fallacy is closely related to the moralistic fallacy, which occurs when an individual derives what is from what ought to be. This article will provide a brief overview of the naturalistic fallacy and explore its implications for ethical decision-making.
The naturalistic fallacy was first described by the British philosopher G.E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica. Moore argued that it is impossible to derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’, and that attempting to do so is a form of logical fallacy. For example, one cannot conclude that something ought to be done simply because it is done, or that something ought not to be done simply because it is not done. Instead, moral judgements must be based on reasons other than what is observed in nature.
The implications of the naturalistic fallacy for ethical decision-making are significant. By conflating is and ought, individuals may make wrong decisions based on false premises. For instance, an individual may decide to act in a certain way because it is what is commonly done, without considering whether it is actually the right thing to do. This can lead to unjust or immoral behaviour.
The naturalistic fallacy also has implications for scientific research. By conflating is and ought, researchers may attempt to derive moral or ethical conclusions from scientific data. This can lead to biased results and flawed conclusions. For example, a researcher may conclude that a certain behaviour is preferred or advantageous based on empirical observations, without considering whether it is actually the right thing to do.
In conclusion, the naturalistic fallacy is an important concept to understand in order to make sound ethical decisions and conduct unbiased research. By conflating is and ought, individuals may make wrong decisions and derive flawed conclusions. It is therefore important to consider the implications of the naturalistic fallacy when making ethical decisions and interpreting scientific data.
References
Moore, G. E. (1903). Principia ethica. Cambridge University Press.
Hurd, P. (2012). The naturalistic fallacy and the is-ought problem. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalistic-fallacy/
Kumar, S. (2020). Naturalistic Fallacy: Definition, Examples and Implications. Ethics Unwrapped. https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/naturalistic-fallacy
Wilson, M. (2009). The naturalistic fallacy in ethical decision-making. The International Journal of the Humanities, 7(5), 17-21.