Why is the "naturalistic fallacy" considered a fallacy...

Logos sounds like something you'd like.

>Afallacyis the use of invalid or otherwise faultyreasoning, or "wrong moves"in the construction of anargument. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is.

The distinction of nature vs other isn't meaningful. Humans have altered their nature, but animals do the same. They burrow, build dams etc. Where do you draw the line?
If you do draw the line you face the issue of motivating where and why you've drawn the line. Unless you draw the line arbitrarily you've got a reason for distinguishing the two sides beyond just nature vs non-nature. Since you're defining what nature is right now.
When you have that distinction you can motivate from there instead of 'nature'. Say you don't consider nature to be non-toxin poisons like carbon monoxide to be of nature. Whatever your argument regarding the poisons are your argument isn't served by the nature vs non-nature distinction anymore. Your objection is with us introducing carbon monoxide.
This goes for any nature vs non-nature distinction where you can make a _rational_ argument because nature isn't well defined. Beyond definitions like natural vs supernatural. Any man made thing is operating within nature, physics. If you don't care about rationality you don't need to bother with fallacies at all.

So whenever you're tempted to use a natural fallacy you're either rationally wrong or not specific enough.
If your aim is to deceive people natural fallacies are a great tool. The people who supported fossile fuel waste instead of nuclear power in the 70's and 80's were very fond of it.

>quote
It's Wikipedia. Pasted poorly for some reason.

>Outside of an intervening spiritual authority
why are there so many fucking weirdos on lit

What's weird about that? Pretty normal topic of moral philosophy

>retard who didn't read OP's two responses about why naturalism is based on instinct and drive of a species and not running around a forest naked

t. communist who cant understand the concept of morality

Because what is considered natural changes from time to time. The naturalistic fallacy is also circular reasoning. It is, so it's good and it's good because it is.

T. communist confirmed?

He asked about the naturalistic fallacy.
If I'm gonna do him a favor and attempt to answer the question he didn't ask my guess is that he's mixing topics that shouldn't be mixed. Namely fallacies and morality. Morality is not intrinsically linked to rationality in any way. You've set a goal. Your goals may vary person to person. Since OP explicitly excluded the supernatural he's got a meaningless set (universe) to try to motivate something from.

Rationality and the fallacies is all about truth in the mathematical sense. He can't ask this question and mean to strive for truth while knowing what he's asking.
OP is an idiot.

If we wish to motivate universal morality from nature there's nothing to be done with those two. Anything that happens is natural. What you could say is that the environment we evolved to isn't the one we built and there's contention between desires and morality that comes from this new environment. I can agree with that. But that's not what he said. He didn't even remotely come close to that.
You've clearly read something into my post which I didn't say aswell. He never said anything about removing technology. Neither did I. Ignoring the comment about nuclear power. But that's just an example of fallacy in use.

why have God/s made the world work in favor of virtue, encourage it?
The more virtues societies are the most prosperous; virtue is scientifically necessary for humanity's survival. Even if god had never intervened, we would still developed morality (our survival demands it), the theologians confirm and ponder this themselves: The ancient and virtuous pagans.
God confirms the "appeal to nature" as valid.

Not the "appeal to nature", as in, that everything is natural. But as in, 'our nature'. Our nature is not any random behavior.

You don't see the contradiction in your reasoning?
You claim that the division of natural and unnatural is artificial, and "not real", and then conclude that democracy is unnatural.

>inb4
>human nature ayy lmao ishiggydiggy

Incoherent. You are placing "virtue" before utility. What we call "virtue" is not, from a non-theistic perspective, "virtuous" a priori, but is deemed so for its properties useful in achieving perceived benefits. What is considered virtuous differs markedly from society to society ("virtue" itself doesn't always have a direct translation, there are other moral terms from ancient Greece that are difficult to translate into English as well, like 'agathos').
At the same time, it's hard to evaluate all societies virtues through such a rigid lens; it seems that a lot of human societies place value on things that are not necessarily conducive to survival, power, quality of life and so on; that may in fact directly contradict these ends - we might be able to say that somehow most traditions and values, somehow and at some point became prominent because of some survival or fitness-inducing quality, even if in a particular context they seem to us, as observers, aberrant and harmful.

>Why is the "naturalistic fallacy" considered a fallacy?
Because
1) nature is extremely difficult to define
2) what people call natural is usually a material, amoral phenomenon that has nothing to do with ethics, right and wrong

>Outside of an intervening spiritual authority it is the only basis of morality
except for the other bases of morality.

This is a very poorly written post. It doesn't seem intent on explaining. It's more an artistic expression. Not an effective way to make an argument. Though with the inclusion of god without making it an axiom rather than an assumption it's not an argument.
Yes, we need society to advance effectively. It's very unlikely we could be savages who murder eachother all the time and actually get some scientific advancement and thus power.
On the topic of virtue you should realize that with this argument you need to accept that virtue isn't a single thing. Societies have come about separately from one another and they very often don't share virtues beyond a few basic ones. When people talk about virtue they normally don't talk about how virtuous they are because they didn't steal, lie or kill today. Though just those rules gets us quite far. There's also lots of things that are regarded as virtuous that oppose progress along the path we've taken to get where we are now. Perhaps they make more sense along a different path but with how we've evolved as a society they were clearly not the right virtues. Unless the higher powers you believe in are just powerful beings (consider Norse gods that didn't really have much input on morality with regards to other gods) they would have steered humanity on the right path. Gods wrath didn't really play much role in furthering humanity when you consider Catholicism and their interactions with Galileo for instance. See the Galileo affair.
It's silly of me to answer for him but I'm thinking he takes on the view of his projected listener. That's the only way that makes sense. He should have been more explicit.

>There's also lots of things that are regarded as virtuous that oppose progress along the path we've taken to get where we are now. Perhaps they make more sense along a different path but with how we've evolved as a society they were clearly not the right virtues.
>Gods wrath didn't really play much role in furthering humanity when you consider Catholicism and their interactions with Galileo for instance. See the Galileo affair.
So this is the power of comprehending all previous societies and historical forces only through their direct relationship to the present day...

Well the counter augment would be that we've taken the optimal path due to divine intervention.
Which is very hard to see.
>comprehending all previous societies
Never said we did. But you can probably see how letting Galileo not be in house arrest for the rest of his life might have done something in the service of scientific progress.

Furthermore, any useful understanding of nature must include the simple observation that nature, for lack of a more precise term (exactly because a certain emotional content is useful at this point), nature, well, nature is god-damn evil. Organisms constantly ripping each other open for food, etc.

>herp derp that's not 'evil' what a childish view terp-tee-tum

Okay, go get gored by a lion then. Such might not be "evil" in whatever then meaningless sense of the word you might have in mind, but one thing's for sure, and it's the only thing that actually matters here: for the organism getting gored, nature isn't /good/. And this is exactly the fallacy.

The counter-argument is to question your basic assumptions.
It seems very odd to write off any 'productive' influence of the idea of "God's wrath" on human society based on the minute example of the Galileo affair... which doesn't really seem related to the idea at all, considering it was a conflict between what was considered correct and incorrect theory. A legal affair in a society where promoting "incorrect" ideas was considered criminal. It's also probable that Galileo had more of an impact on science and the Enlightenment due to the controversy, partly contributing the values of scientific freedom that you possess currently. It's entirely possible that in another timeline the lack of any watershed or controversial moments like this would not have lead to the conditions and sentiments responsible for modern sensibilities on the subject. Though it's impossible to really verify historical counterfactuals and judge the ultimate significance of singular events, you should be wary not to engage in historical determinism.

I'm no Catholic or real Christian apologist, but it's completely ludicrous and inane to reduce all of Catholicism's influence on European thought and culture down to such an obvious and exceptional canard.
Also your opinions on what "furthers" humanity and what is considered "progress" are obviously far from objective, and determined by your own cultural and historical context.

look up the is/ought distinction

>which doesn't really seem related to the idea at all
If gods wrath was a factor in determining humanity's outcome. Then if we've taken the optimal path gods wrath would have been in effect for this instance. That is assuming Galileo wasn't gonna wreck scientific progress somehow.
>It's also probable that Galileo had more of an impact on science and the Enlightenment due to the controversy
Well it's unlikely that this 'controversy' as you put it (a lone scientist being put to trial against overwhelming odds with almost nobody defending him and no clear attitude change within Catholicism) really did much.
>It's entirely possible that in another timeline the lack of any watershed or controversial moments like this would not have lead to the conditions and sentiments responsible for modern sensibilities on the subject.
This is a good point. But I don't deem it necessary to kill and stop so many people. Also if you consider the optimal solution to humanity progress encouragement and conservative argument for science seems like a much more reasonable approach.

I must be honest. I'm not taking the argument that God has intervened/planned this circumstance to optimally propel humanity forward by its own means seriously.
>but it's completely ludicrous and inane to reduce all of Catholicism's influence on European thought and culture down to such an obvious and exceptional canard.
Did I do that? Oh I must have done that on the backside of the HTML somewhere. I never saw myself write this.
What I did do is take a famous example of negative influence and say 'this is probably not optimal'.
>lso your opinions on what "furthers" humanity and what is considered "progress" are obviously far from objective
Absolutely. That's something I brought up. Humanity doesn't share a single set of virtues. But anons post was making it quite clear that he viewed societal advancement as it is now as (largely) positive.
We could get here quicker.

Sorry I can't engage with you much more since I've stayed up quite past my bedtime, but I'll just note that I think we've misunderstood each other on a basic point: I thought you were talking about the "idea" of God's wrath in the human imagination, and it seems as though you've interpreted me to be advocating a literal, existing God's influence on history rather than the concepts and beliefs about such a being in the popular and intellectual imagination.

Because nature is a myth, you fucking moron.

Democracy is disgusting. Fuck off to /pol/
Natural law doesn't exist. Try again, plebbitor.
>our nature
Spooked. Fuck off, plebbitor

NECK YOURSELF PLEASE YOU STOICSHIT SUBHUMAN

I see.
Yeah that makes a lot more sense.
Since the initial poster assumed gods existence and seemed to hold some kind of direct attribution to god for how events turned out. Well you see where I'm going.

>Spooked
Are you parroting Stirner now?

Recommend me some books on democracy and natural law

>Democracy is disgusting. Fuck off to /pol/
/pol/ hates democracy you newfag

>T. extremely disproven blank slatist, probably commie

Neither thing exists. Why would you read a book on something which doesn't exist?
Nope. Populism depends on democracy you newfag.
Project harder, statist subhuman.
>disproven
MUH PSY ANTS

Recommend me some book that makes me understand your point of view then

Communism depends on bourgeois capitalism to emerge but that doesn't mean it likes it. Populism emerges from liberal democracy and then destroys it.
Caesar.........

I mainly mean trust, trust is the greatest virtue, without it civilization would die, and to have it, you need the other virtues.
And my point about the gods; they have made the rules of existence and written our—if they exist—so both sides, atheist and believer, must accept morals/virtue/ethics. Even the egoist, if he desires to continue living he must abide by the emotions that evolution and/or God has written inside us. Being virtuous leads to you having the best possible life; in everyone's standards, unless you are insane/psychopathic, were any form of cohesive logic is out the window. Obviously accidents happen and you might die any day.

Human nature is scientific fact, even if the external world is an illusion, that illusion clearly abide by unchanging rules.

>Nope. Populism depends on democracy you newfag.
Ah, so sticking with the lesser of two or more evils must imply a love for democracy, right?

/pol/ only favors populist candidates because they suit /pol/'s desires more than other candidates. That doesn't mean that they'd put populism above monarchism or national socialism.

*written our nature—
>statist
Did I say our current civilization was the best possible?
>I'm fucking posting Cicero, it's obviously his system that's the best.
I said in an earlier post that life (and existence) began at the lowest point, and evolution strives towards the highest—divinity.
Civilization is a child of evolution (and the gods who have written the rules of reality, if they exist).
Any law, no matter how basic, is still civilization.

Tabula Rasa is the most wrong and most disproven idea of the enlightenment.

this should be above
>statist . . .

>That doesn't mean that they'd put populism above monarchism or national socialism.
What are you talking about? Half of /pol/ is retarded boomers and the other half is teenagers

He says that populism is relative. They agree with European populism not cause they're fucking populists.

a lot of us on pol are crypto-fascists actually. I can pass perfectly for various forms of Marxist, a neo-liberal, an anarchist, and a left-libertarian among university students and the like.

You guys are immensely easy to predict and manipulate

except its blatantly obvious that you guys are fascists.

Behold: the mad genius, He-who-hides-in-the-dark, the shadowy puppeteer.

>The state of nature, says Pufendorf, is not the condition that Nature proposes to itself principally as the most perfect and most suitable to the human race',34 and elsewhere, The state of nature pure and simple ... is not the state to which nature has destined man.35
>Which is to say that the state of nature is against nature, or in other words, that nature does not want men to live in the state of nature. The wording of this proposition is a little strange, but it is not surprising; it suffices to be understood. So what is this pure and simple state of nature that is against nature?
>It is that where we conceive each person finding himself as he was born without all the inventions and all the purely human or divinely inspired establishments... by which we understand not only the diverse sorts of arts with all the general commodities of life, but also civil societies whose formation is the principle source of the good order we see among men.36 In a word, man in the state of nature is a man fallen from the clouds31
>Pufendorf is right; ordinary usage opposing the state of nature to the state of civilization, it is clear that man in the first state is only man, less all that he has from the institutions that surround him in the second state; which is say a man who is not a man.
>In effect, when one says that nature destines or does not destine a particular being to a particular state, the word nature necessarily awakens the idea of an intelligence and a will. When Pufendorf says that the state of nature is against nature, he is not contradicting himself: he only gives two different meanings to same word. In the first case, the word signifies a state and in the second a cause. In the first case, it is taken for the exclusion of art and civilization; and in the second, for the action of some agent.
>Moreover, as in an equation one of the members can always be taken for the other, since they are equal, likewise the word nature every time that it expresses an action can only express that of the divine action, manifested immediately or by the intermediary of some secondary agent; it follows that without changing values, one can always substitute the value God for that of nature.
>The proposition is thus reduced to this: the state of nature is not a state to which God has destined man. This is a very clear and most reasonable proposition.

>They agree with European populism not cause they're fucking populists.
lol good one

i mean in real life my man. Even just having read Capital puts you a leg above almost all of them.

Of course in the current climate being le white male means you have to be sickeningly deferential but there are ways to do this and still appear like you know more than them, because of course you do, because they don't actually read.

Im not at all unusual, anyone who wants to exist in that social world but can also think for themselves has to develop that ability. I've met a bunch of guys who do the same thing

Nature is in flux, nature is in flux, nature is in flux

NATURE FALLACY NERDS BTFO’d FOREVER

its only considered a fallacy by fags that hate that they get countless STDs

Yes /pol/, I'm sure the vast majority of people are sociopaths just like you.

The egoist should be he who's the most virtuous, people and society will treat him better, and he has all to gain.

>Outside of an intervening spiritual authority it is the only basis of morality
This is only true if you adhere to a virtuist system of ethics. Utilitarians believe (correctly) that morals are systems invented by humans, for humans, and should therefore be structured according to ends, rather than derived axiomatically from a few "inherently good" starting principles.

It doesn't mean it likes it, it means it is like it. Marxist communism is not utopian, it is the natural progression from capitalism, it contains aspects of capitalism.

But this is obviously wrong. "is" demonstrates "ought" when the default "isn't". All we now about the natural world demonstrates not only that it is too ordered, but that it shouldn't exist at all, unless there is an outside force that set it into motion in this very way. This is again demonstrated by life. Nothing about the nature of chemical interactions suggests that life either could or should exist. While it does not negate entropy, it does negate a principle of entropy--not only must all energy dissipate, but it must dissipate in the most efficient way possible. Life is less efficient than not-life. Existence is less efficient than non-existence. If this cannot be possible without intent, then there must be intent. Therefore it is incumbent upon those who say there is no intent to prove how it is possible.

I missed your reply. This post is pretty big, I'm sleepy, it probably have errors in all forms.
>"virtuous" a priori, but is deemed so for its properties useful in achieving perceived benefits
not necessarily
Women desire successful men, men desire women, women find many of the virtues appealing (but being women they confuse similar vices with virtue, like being an asshole with confidence) This is not truly "perceived" or chosen. All women want strong, confident, hard-working, honest, trustworthy, courageous, etc., women, and men, desire it in each-other, and mankind flourishes from them.
>"virtue" itself doesn't always have a direct translation, there are other moral terms from ancient Greece that are difficult to translate into English as well, like 'agathos
True, but I used "trust" (in another post) as a judge of virtue, you only trust those who are "virtuous" (obviously not all, or most).
>What is considered virtuous differs markedly from society to society
See above, and—find the most "virtuous" society, and you will also discover the most prosperous one. Just look at china, becoming a more virtuous nation has made it lift itself from the terror and evil of communist tyranny, obviously it's not a virtuous nation yet, but more so than before. Yet, we also find like above with women, values are actually pretty similar culture to culture, what changes are degree. I do not argue there isn't subjective values, there are clearly- Imagine dialects, we "all" share the base values, but they are colored by race, culture, and time/history. Obviously not the only variable, IQ has nothing to do with virtues, but higher intelligence and wisdom is clearly necessary for civilized behavior.
>At the same time, it's hard to evaluate all societies virtues through such a rigid lens; it seems that a lot of human societies place value on things that are not necessarily conducive to survival, power, quality of life and so on; that may in fact directly contradict these ends - we might be able to say that somehow most traditions and values, somehow and at some point became prominent because of some survival or fitness-inducing quality, even if in a particular context they seem to us, as observers, aberrant and harmful.
>it seems that a lot of human societies place value on things that are not necessarily conducive to survival, power, quality of life and so on
And they prosper less, hopefully you're not saying all cultures are equal?
As I've also said in thread, we aren't perfect, evolution strives for us to prosper. (Rather we strive and evolution happen, and we survive or die, and seemingly the "virtuous" survive "better".)
Evolution still "strives" to make us more virtuous—hopefully, still as it has.
We love to feel loved, we love those we see as virtuous; we can and have been deceived by liars and ourselves—we aren't divine, yet.

Wrong again, STEMsperg. Try again, or maybe not, since you are so obvious a subhuman autodidact who has no clue what he is speaking about.
Frankly, just off yaself yacunt.
No, because they are literally just 'classical liberals'.
Pragmatism is invalid. Sorry, sweetie. Go back to plebbit with your le science memery.

>marxist communism is not utopian
>literally calls for revolution to establish an ideal society

Virtue doesn't exist. Please go back to plebbit, peterson suckoff, before I have the urge to bash in your nose.

That's not utopian. Thanks for proving that you are an uneducated maggot who should be ignored, just like the stoicshitter subhuman.

>Bothing is true, erryting is purmited

Suicide, please.

>oh man, why can't I stop browsing reddit, it's like some strange force within me controls me, stumspurgs call it habit, ayy lmao >>human nature is sumtin to ubercum

idiot. Populism only requires democracy if you believe a government can only follow the national will via polling. Fascism soundly rejects this premise and believes that a strong leader works for the people and thereby receives their will to act with authority. This is literally the Swastika. If everyone acts for the benefit of the state, then the will of the nation is one and progress is guaranteed. You may say that's ridiculous, but that's what they believe.

>Pragmatism is invalid

>ideal society
>not utopian
Thomas More's Utopia, where the word comes from, literally describes a proto-Marxist state.

I'm not him, but
an ideal society is not a proto-Marxist state
but they are both utopian in their way

you fucking dunce. I want you to re-type what I wrote letter by fucking letter and then tell me how what you just posted is at all meaningful. The book Utopia, as in the source of both the term and idea that has now slipped into common parlance as a utopia, literally, as in by the direct meaning of the words, describes a society that not only matches in many regards, but in fact led up to, the society envisioned by Marx and Engels for which they encouraged radical political action. There is not a more textbook Utopian movement than that of Marxist communism.

Yes that is true, but, the "ideal society" is not proto-Marxist, the proto-Marxist state is not an ideal society.

It should Eutopian tbhfamalam

No?

To just disregard an argument as an already established fallacy is a fallacy. It's an easy way to do a "gotcha" and claim victory because you can't actually debunk their argument.

There is no basis for morality outside of an intervening spiritual authority

>nutin exists only MUH ego matters

I'm an ecologist you retard. I exist in everything and everything exists in me.

Doesn't seem to make much sense calling yourself a retard does it?

>there is no human nature
>also free will doesnt exist

???

If you say, "It is natural, therefore it is good," you have to show precisely why this is the case in a valid syllogism. Many things that take place in "nature" (in the sense of an uncivilized state) are not what humans call "morally good," e.g. cannibalism. There are myriad ways to escape this conundrum. Aristotle says that animals aren't conscious, so morality can't be imputed to them, which is why it's fine or at least not immoral that they cannibalize each other, whereas humans are conscious, and have choice, so they can act morally, and this is why human cannibalism can be described morally. But even then, someone could make the argument that humans "naturally" eat the corpses of other humans when there is no other source of meat available.

So it's not necessarily a formal fallacy, but it (the name "naturalistic fallacy") can be used to describe an argument of this sort that contains a formal fallacy. Sometimes, though, ethical non-naturalists simply affix the term to any argument they don't like

this

>huu huu huuuu muh tabula rasa huu huu!

Blank slate theory has been categorically disproven. Human nature objectively exists, we have empirical evidence of this.

Anyone who denies this is creationist-tier retarded.

Empirical evidence doesn't exist. Try again.
I'm not a Lockean, you subhuman retard. Get a rope.

>Empirical evidence doesn't exist

Holy fuck how retarded are you?

Go back to plebbit, please. Some of us are educated here.

>2018
>Not being an expressivist

You only see much of -your- established morality in nature because you deliberately want to.

sensory data doesnt exist only phenomenal experience is by definition real

Morality is a field that is inherently geaneological. All sorts of people over the ages have appealed to nature in one form or another and came to various views; would it not be arrogance to advocate your own as absolute?

>im gonna feign humility and erudition while parroting N

>And my point about the gods; they have made the rules of existence and written our—if they exist—so both sides, atheist and believer, must accept morals/virtue/ethics.

Define moral. Define virtuous. Define ethical. If you can't do so in a way people won't disagree then I'm not sure how you can defend this?

>Even the egoist, if he desires to continue living he must abide by the emotions that evolution and/or God has written inside us. Being virtuous leads to you having the best possible life; in everyone's standards, unless you are insane/psychopathic, were any form of cohesive logic is out the window.

Morality is not wanting to be stabbed to death by a mob of angry plebs?

>Human nature is scientific fact, even if the external world is an illusion, that illusion clearly abide by unchanging rules.

What is human nature then? Where are the peer reviewed studies that shows it's exact nature?

>Greentexting in response

What part of that do you disagree with? Yes, it's obviously influenced by Nietzsche. Well done for being ablw to read the word geaneological.

there’s no arrogance because people don’t have virtues or selves and there’s no such thing as morality or morals or natures, these are all language fictions. and making noise, this is what you were doing, about different patterns of behavior can be advantageous or disadvantageous. For instance some people think murdering people is disadvantageous and their strategy will preclude this, others will find it agreeable and there’s won’t. That’s all that’s happening, there is no system of morals and no person in human history has ever had “christian morals” some of their behavior sometimes resembles the morality ostensibly espoused by church fathers or the bible.

>there’s no arrogance because people don’t have virtues or selves and there’s no such thing as morality or morals or natures, these are all language fictions.

They also don't proclaim themselves to be arbiters of moral truth based on infallible deductions from objective features of 'natural' though? Which was my point, perhaps somewhat polemicaly in hindsight.