naturalistic fallacy


Also found in: Wikipedia.

naturalistic fallacy

n
(Philosophy) the supposed fallacy of inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises. Compare Hume's law, non-naturalism
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
References in periodicals archive ?
that such inescapability does not matter in our context For the move from "You inescapably [phi]" to "You should [phi]" is no better--not even the tiniest little bit--than the move from "You actually [phi]" to "You should [phi]." (15) The objection here is that constitutivism suffers from a version of the naturalistic fallacy. But the objection shifts the topic.
The naturalistic fallacy can also affect the public's perception of agricultural technologies.
There is also a healthy dose of the "naturalistic fallacy" at work.
This, however, does not mean acceptance of the naturalistic fallacy that everything natural and untampered by human technology is necessarily good.
The "is-ought dichotomy" goes by other names as well, including the "fact-value dichotomy" (the notion that you can't derive values from facts) and the "naturalistic fallacy" (the notion that you can't define "good" in terms of natural properties).
Moore and David Hume's formulations of the naturalistic fallacy (explaining the good in terms of natural properties); the nature of normativity in language; a perspectivist account of the normativity of meaning; a neurocognitive approach to the normativity of mathematics; F.
Braude's discussion of nous is marginally diminished by his claim that Aristotle's position on the naturalistic fallacy, the fact/value distinction, is unclear.
According to this argument, every attempt to derive natural law from nature as an "is" was labeled as "naturalistic fallacy." (23) Nature in this argument is presupposed to be only matter which can not contain any norms.
This potential dilemma highlights the need for such a position to face up to the naturalistic fallacy. Finally, the essay also exaggerates in ways typical of proclamations of 'new' ethics: it makes suggestions for metaethics--sometimes the 'new' ethics are for areas of applied ethics instead--but that probably make no difference for normative ethical theory.
The "naturalistic fallacy," the principle that one cannot get an "ought" from an "is," implies that climate science qua science cannot tell us what we ought to do.
The naturalistic fallacy: British philosophers David Hume and G.E.
But jumping from factual information alone to conclusions about what to do is a mistake in logic known as the 'naturalistic fallacy.' Reasons for what to do (i.e., reasons for action) are logically distinct from science because reasons for action are necessarily predicated on values.