Definition
The Naturalistic Fallacy refers to the is/ought problem: the error of confusing what is true (the natural state) with what ought to be true (the moral state). It assumes that because something occurs in nature, it is therefore morally good or justified.
Why It Matters
Assuming that because something is ‘natural’ it is therefore ‘good’ leads to dangerous pseudoscience and poor ethical reasoning. Poison ivy is natural, but it’s not good to eat. This fallacy is often used to justify social hierarchies or reject life-saving medical treatments like vaccines.
Core Concepts
- Nature Morality: Animals may engage in infanticide, rape, or theft for survival, but this does not provide a moral justification for human behavior. Ethics is a constructed system for social cooperation, not an imitation of biology.
- How to read: “The natural is not equivalent to the moral.”
- Meaning: Descriptive facts about what happens in nature cannot, by themselves, establish what humans ought to do. The is/ought gap blocks jumping from biological observation to moral prescription.
- Distinct from Appeal to Nature: The naturalistic fallacy is primarily about moral judgments, whereas the Appeal to Nature Fallacy is about quality or safety (e.g., “Natural herbs are safer than synthetic drugs”).
- Evolutionary Justification: Attempting to justify social inequality or violence based on “natural” evolutionary strategies.