Naturalistic fallacy
The naturalistic fallacy is an alleged logical fallacy, identified by British philosopher G.E. Moore in Principia Ethica (1903), which Moore stated was committed whenever a philosopher attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of one or more natural properties (such as "pleasant", "healthy", "natural", etc.).
Related Topics:
Naturalistic fallacy - Logical fallacy - G.E. Moore
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The naturalistic fallacy is related to, and often confused with, the is-ought problem (as formulated by, for example, David Hume). As a result, the term is sometimes used loosely to describe arguments which claim to draw ethical conclusions from natural facts. Even more distantly, the term is used to describe arguments which claim to draw ethical conclusions from the fact that something is "natural" or "unnatural."
Related Topics:
Is-ought problem - David Hume
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Table of Content ~
| ► | Introduction |
| ► | Moore's discussion |
| ► | Related Uses |
| ► | References |
| ► | See also |
| ► | External links |
~ What's Hot ~
~ Community ~
| ► | History Forum Come and discuss about History, Civilizations, Historical Events and Figures |
| ► | History Web-Ring A community of sites, blogs and forums dedicated to History. Do not hesitate to submit your site. |
and are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Lexicon - Privacy Policy - Spiritus-Temporis.com ©2005.
