[ad_1]
The naturalistic fallacy is a logical error where something being natural is used to imply that it is good. The term “natural” can be vague, and using this fallacy can create a circular argument. It is important to separate factual statements from value judgments to avoid this fallacy.
A naturalistic fallacy is a type of logical fallacy in which the idea that something is natural is used to indicate that it must therefore be good. One major flaw of this idea is that the meaning of the term “natural” may be clear in some cases, but vague in others. Using this idea can also create a “begging” situation in which someone argues that things that are natural are good simply because they are natural. A naturalistic fallacy is typically built on someone using a statement of fact as evidence for a claim of value.
Also called an appeal to nature, a naturalistic fallacy most commonly occurs when someone uses the argument that something that is “natural” is therefore “good.” This is typically used in conjunction with the idea that something that is “unnatural” is inherently “bad” or at least not as good as something “natural.” One of the major problems with using a naturalistic fallacy is that the meaning of the term “natural” is often vague. While trees are clearly natural, it is less clear when discussing a tree that has been introduced by people to a new area and is harming the existing ecosystem in that area as to whether this process is “natural” or “ unnatural”.
Another major problem with using a naturalistic fallacy in an argument is that it often creates a situation where someone “asks the question.” “Begging the question” refers to an argument that basically uses itself as proof of itself. For example, someone who says “these birds are good because they are natural and natural things are good” is “asking the question.” The argument requires assuming that the condition “natural things are good” is true to support it, but this is the very purpose of the argument being posed. This type of argument is quite common in a naturalistic fallacy, and avoiding it requires someone to first argue whether something “natural” is intrinsically good.
Many of the problems that arise when someone uses a naturalistic fallacy stems from the fact that the fallacy is based on a statement of fact that converts to a statement of value. If someone says, “This tree is natural,” then he is simply making a statement of fact; this regardless of whether it is true or not. The problem arises when someone extends that statement to then say “This tree is natural, which means it’s good,” as this introduces a value statement over the fact statement. Any such claim needs to be weighed separately and argued for or against, regardless of the initial factual claim, which is the best way for someone to get over a naturalistic fallacy.
[ad_2]