Naturalistic fallacy
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The naturalistic fallacy is a flawed argument utilizing an appeal to nature[1] and the is–ought argument,[2] suggesting that because something occurs in nature, it is therefore inherently morally defensible. Conversely, a phenomenon that does not occur in nature may be inherently amoral transhumanism or immoral.
The naturalistic fallacy may be more commonly made by adherents of ethical naturalism,[3] moral realism[4] or as a reactionary position to the yuck factor.[5]
Examples
- Life extension technologies allow us to live longer than our natural biology would allow, therefore they are morally wrong
- Death has happened naturally for millions of years, therefore is defensible
- Aging occurs everywhere[6] and so is desirable
- Genetic engineering is inherently wrong
- Aging is not a disease, unlike cancer
Non-examples
There are other appeals-to-nature which utilise different arguments such as concerns about environmentalism or overpopulation.
References
- ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
- ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
- ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism
- ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism
- ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_repugnance
- ↑ This isn't technically correct, but is a common argument