Naturalistic fallacy

>naturalistic fallacy

I don't get it. Why not?

Heterosexual intercourse produces life therefore we should kill all gays

This is perfectly reasonable if you don't accept that all life is valuable. Killing people is an exaggerated counterpoint, I didn't have that in mind. It also just dawned on me that ethics is made up.

Its not reasonable because a negative stances towards gays does not logically follow out of the observation that heterosexual intercourse produces life. someone could just as easily say "homosexual intercourse does not produce life therefore we should kill at heterosexuals" and it would make as much sense (none)

Nature does not exist as some grid that rules over life What we call nature is just something we project onto things based on what we observe of them and as a counterpoint to that which we consider to be artificial. So whenever you say "well, it's only natural that it is so", you're saying it's just how things are when in fact concealing (perhaps from yourself), your own responsibilty about what you're saying and the argument in question.

It's not reasonable because it is not at all connected. To produce life is not a "natural value", not more than some people being gay, some being sterile, or even some species dying out. There are no natural values, it is one's own value to say a couple must only be together if they can produce offspring. It's just as reasonable as saying "young people's intercourse produces life therefore we should kill all old people".

Also, just because something is, doesn't mean that it should.

Argumentum ad logicam.

You're right, that's nonsense, but the example itself is also a bit of a stretch. I'll show you the one I had in mind when making the thread

>There exist exactly two sexes in nature, therefore every intersexual person should be assigned one of them.
It fits the definition that you take a descriptive statement and draw a norm out of it, but aside from us being able to make up whatever the fuck we want it doesn't feel right.

There are many things that are natural and are not good, ethical, or desirable. Thus it is a fallacy to use "it's against nature" as an argument in favor or against something. Afterall, smallpox was natural, yet nobody cried when it was eradicated.

Not that user, but that is not logical, there is no sequence. Why? Why not create a third definition, or just drop the definition, or settle with 6 definitions no more or less? Why not something else?

Not even a side of the argument I would take, but your sentences are still not following.

It sounds like this:
>We are born with feet for walking, therefore we don't need shoes.

The reason it is similar is because although feet work just fine, we need shoes because we have created new necessities beyond just what our body shows at first glance. You don't want to walk barefoot on the asphalt, or go barefoot to a business meeting and make a bad impression.

As far as I know, the argument for sex and gender is the same. It's not just about the biology of genitals and coitus, but about the necessity of that distinction within our social life.

Yes, but there are obviously things that are natural and good, as well as things that are natural and bad. It might be good to have philosophical consistency but saying 'naturalistic fallacy' every time surely isn't a good thing, right?

I'll assume the truth of your observation (there are only two sexes in nature) for the sake of argument.
>It fits the definition that you take a descriptive statement and draw a norm out of it
>it doesn't feel right.
My guess is that you are conflating what scientists should do with what society should do. It is the job of a scientist to accurately describe nature. There is no moral "ought" when it comes to what scientists should do because it just their job. So yes, if there are only two sexes found in nature then it would be the job of a scientist to assign all people into those two sexes. That isn't because of some moral duty though.

When it comes to what society should do, how the rest of us non scientists should assign people, we'd get into the realm of moral oughts since we aren't tasked with the job of describing nature accurately.

>Yes, but there are obviously things that are natural and good, as well as things that are natural and bad
That's exactly why it is a fallacy.

A fallacy doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong, just that your logic is flawed.

>All dogs are mammals
>All mammals have four legs
>Therefore all dogs have four legs
Is illogical and fallacious, because even if dogs do have four legs, it's not because they are mammals.

>Thing is natural
>Therefore thing is good
Is illogical, even if thing is indeed good (but then, for what reasons? where is the logic to support it in an argument? replace the naturalistic fallacy with that instead)

You can't just pick out good things and ignore the bad and call it a day

That's not a fallacy. The logic and reasoning is completely valid, you just introduced a false premise (all mammals have four legs)

"naturalistic fallacy" doesn't mean that everything natural is bad, it means that something being natural isn't necessarily an argument in its favor, that it isn't an argument at all
does that make sense to you?

I agree more or less with this user, and I'd highlight this:
> if there are only two sexes found in nature then it would be the job of a scientist to assign all people into those two sexes.
This. And if a third sex appears, a scientist would just take note of it and include it, rather then assume his early conclusions about there only being two sexes in nature being the final truth.

damn, i messed it up with my example, fuck it though whatever

Soundest thing you've ever said.

Sure. But if you were to present an argument without nature as a reference, what would you use then? What is "good"? I'll have to do some reading I guess. Thanks for the good posts.

this ISNT AT ALL WHAT THE NATURALISTIC FALLACY IS RETARDS

The naturalistic fallacy is GE Moore REEEEEEing about anyone trying to cross the is-ought gap

Killing is natural therefore it is good.
Pot smokers say the same about pot which is obviously stupid.

only manchildren denote arguments as 'fallacies'

Only brainlets refuse to acknowledge when something is wrong in their 'arguments'

the naturalistic fallacy is the epitome of "i disagree with this so it's a obviously a fallacy therefore I'm right i win"

>What if I said something completely pulled out of my arse
The naturalistic fallacy is , I don't know where you are getting anything else from unless you've solved the is/ought problem

>But if you were to present an argument without nature as a reference, what would you use then?
everyone has their own reference and society is modeled on those that prevail

> (You)
>>What if I said something completely pulled out of my arse
>The naturalistic fallacy is (You)
let me think.........

teleology solved it before it was formulated buddy boyo

Good is not natural but essential. Therefore any talk of morality must, if it is to be in any way coherent, accept the existence of essences (ideally conceived in a Platonic way). Natural and good very often coincide, but it's nothing more than a correlation

So, going from here, there's a difference between what I said and pot smokers because science has determined that smoking pot is actually bad for you. Following evidence, if you assume that being healthy is good, then you can go from a descriptive fact and say 'you shouldn't smoke pot'. Now it looks like the naturalistic fallacy is just protecting subjective understanding of what 'good' is.

In my example, gender is an institutional fact. We could have an unlimited number of genders, depending on how you want to interpret scientific fact, but it's still based on nature, in any case. We have then chosen what is most convenient. Right?

Please do, you seem to have some internal dissonance

can you come up with a two situations with all the same natural facts but with a different moral status?

I give my money to N, thinking he would help people. He kills people instead.
vs
I give my money to N, thinking he would kill people. He kills people.

why would you think he would help/kill people??

Not that user, but you are at the doorstep of a moral discussion.