Does appeal to natural law commit the naturalistic fallacy?

[Ana_v]

For any issue of moral relevance, but specifically I have in mind such issues as human homosexuality (the sexual acts, not same-sex attraction), abortion, artificial reproduction.

---

As a sidenote, somewhat: I remember in some of his debates with non-theists, Christian philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig, accused them of commiting this fallacy whenever, in the context of discussing the foundation of universally binding moral propositions – they attempted to ground morality upon evolution and conditions that are conducive to human flourishing.

For example – I’m paraphrasing them – “if murder were tolerated as a norm, it would compromise the survivability of the human race …therefore we should not murder” or “rape violates the will of and physically and emotionally injurs the victim…therefore we should not rape” and Dr. Craig would respond: – again I’m paraphrasing – " You are saying that there are certain acts which cause social disturbance and that we find distasteful, and these acts you label as immoral or evil, things which ought not be done. But how do you get from an “is” to an “ought”? What compels the ought?"

---

Things are ordered toward certain ends = Is.
We should respect the ends to which things are ordered (should not disorder) = Ought.

Fallacy?

 

[thewanderer]

My thoughts on the matter would be to start with looking at what kind of thing would be a link to an ‘ought’.

As far as I can see the only thing I can think of is that which is good. And that which one ‘ought not’ is linked to that which is evil or bad.

Now if that is correct, and one sees order and completion as good and disorder and disruption as bad then one might be able to draw a link through this, but again, these are only very preliminary thoughts on this question. What does everyone else think?

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

For any issue of moral relevance, but specifically I have in mind such issues as human homosexuality (the sexual acts, not same-sex attraction), abortion, artificial reproduction.

---

As a sidenote, somewhat: I remember in some of his debates with non-theists, Christian philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig, accused them of commiting this fallacy whenever, in the context of discussing the foundation of universally binding moral propositions – they attempted to ground morality upon evolution and conditions that are conducive to human flourishing.

For example – I’m paraphrasing them – “if murder were tolerated as a norm, it would compromise the survivability of the human race …therefore we should not murder” or “rape violates the will of and physically and emotionally injurs the victim…therefore we should not rape” and Dr. Craig would respond: – again I’m paraphrasing – " You are saying that there are certain acts which cause social disturbance and that we find distasteful, and these acts you label as immoral or evil, things which ought not be done. But how do you get from an “is” to an “ought”? What compels the ought?"

---

Things are ordered toward certain ends = Is.
We should respect the ends to which things are ordered (should not disorder) = Ought.

Fallacy?

To the contrary it is almost the exact opposite. The naturalistic fallacy might say that murder is good because it is natural to kill, but natural law (God’s moral law written on our hearts) says that murder is a grave evil. There are countless examples of this from polyamory to theft.

 

[Peter_Plato]

For any issue of moral relevance, but specifically I have in mind such issues as human homosexuality (the sexual acts, not same-sex attraction), abortion, artificial reproduction.

---

As a sidenote, somewhat: I remember in some of his debates with non-theists, Christian philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig, accused them of commiting this fallacy whenever, in the context of discussing the foundation of universally binding moral propositions – they attempted to ground morality upon evolution and conditions that are conducive to human flourishing.

For example – I’m paraphrasing them – “if murder were tolerated as a norm, it would compromise the survivability of the human race …therefore we should not murder” or “rape violates the will of and physically and emotionally injurs the victim…therefore we should not rape” and Dr. Craig would respond: – again I’m paraphrasing – " You are saying that there are certain acts which cause social disturbance and that we find distasteful, and these acts you label as immoral or evil, things which ought not be done. But how do you get from an “is” to an “ought”? What compels the ought?"

---

Things are ordered toward certain ends = Is.
We should respect the ends to which things are ordered (should not disorder) = Ought.

Fallacy?

From RationalWiki:

The naturalistic fallacy is an argument that suggests something is good because it is natural, or that something is bad because it’s “unnatural”. The flaws with this type of reasoning are readily apparent, consider the following line of “reasoning”: “Arsenic is natural, hence it is better to eat than acetaminophen in Tylenol (which is unnatural, and therefore bad), thus you should take Arsenic next time you have a headache.” The naturalistic fallacy uses the description of how the world “is” to infer how it “ought” to be. Essentially, an argument whose premises merely describe the way that the world is, but whose conclusion describes the way that the world ought to be, introduces a new term in the conclusion, a logical fallacy. The philosopher David Hume commented on this as the is-ought problem, followed by G. E. Moore, who coined the term.

There are two somewhat ambiguous uses of the naturalistic fallacy:

1. If something is natural, it is thereby good. (This does not mean necessarily morally good, however. It could mean good for your health, aesthetically good or some other way in which “good” can be used as an adjective. )
2. That ought can never be derived from is. (This means that merely because something is the case does that imply that it “ought” to be so. Just because a culture sanctions head shrinking as an art, that it is thereby morally permissible.)

Proponents of natural law do not base their claims on the widespread presence of certain beliefs or actions being the reason why they “ought” to be adopted. A natural law proponent would not claim that murder is wrong because most people believe it to be. That would be deriving an ought from an is.

Natural law proponents would claim that the moral law (the imperative nature of “ought”) is written into the very being of “normal” or reasonable human beings precisely because we are moral agents. Our status as moral beings compels us to act morally. We ought to do certain actions precisely because we are moral beings and have the impulse to act morally out of our nature as moral agents.

This does not mean that what we ought to do is determined by what it is that most of us actually do. That would be getting an ought from an is. The second use of the term, “naturalistic fallacy.”

What natural law proponents would claim is that as reasonably moral beings most people will likely assent to and be convinced by principles of natural law and that these principles are very likely to be practiced by most reasonably moral people. The moral “ought” is likely to be what most people intuitively do because people have moral agency as part of their nature.

A correlative claim by natural law proponents is that well-stated moral principles will appeal to the reasoned beliefs of individuals with well-formed consciences.

In other words, justice is not a morally good trait because most people believe it is (ought from is fallacy), but that most people (as moral agents) will act justly because it is a morally good trait.

 

[Bradski]

The naturalistic fallacy might say that murder is good because it is natural to kill.

It might. But it would be wrong in the way you have put it because killing is not the same as murdering. It is natural to kill for food. Even necessary. But it isn’t natural to murder.

I don’t want my family to be murdered.
Therefore murder is wrong in the type of society in which I want to live.
Therefore, we ought not to murder.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t want my family to be murdered.
Therefore murder is wrong in the type of society in which I want to live.
Therefore, we ought not to murder.

Red does not derive from green, it means the same as green. Murder is wrong means we ought not to do it.

Your point is what?
That an ought can be derived from an is?

How about…

I don’t want my family to be murdered.
Murder often happens in the type of society in which I live.
Therefore, I ought to murder before someone murders members of my family

I can’t live without a car, electronic goods and fashionable clothes.
I can get all these things without working for them by being an expert thief or drug dealer.
Therefore, I ought to be an expert thief or drug dealer.

Drugs give me a feeling of euphoria I can get nowhere else.
Euphoric sensations are better than any other kind.
Therefore I ought to take drugs.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

It might. But it would be wrong in the way you have put it because killing is not the same as murdering. It is natural to kill for food. Even necessary. But it isn’t natural to murder.

I don’t want my family to be murdered.
Therefore murder is wrong in the type of society in which I want to live.
Therefore, we ought not to murder.

Okay, change the word kill to murder; then consider the hypothetical that someone has entered into sexual congress with your spouse. It would be wrong to murder the person, but it would be perfectly natural to do so. It is (Or can be) natural to murder, so the fallacy would be that therefore murder is right.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t want my family to be murdered.
Therefore murder is wrong in the type of society in which I want to live.
Therefore, we ought not to murder.

How about:

I want my family to be murdered.
Therefore murder is right in the type of society in which I want to live.
Therefore, I ought to murder.

Does want translate to ought? I don’t think so.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t want my family to be murdered.
Murder often happens in the type of society in which I live.
Therefore, I ought to murder before someone murders members of my family

I can’t live without a car, electronic goods and fashionable clothes.
I can get all these things without working for them by being an expert thief or drug dealer.
Therefore, I ought to be an expert thief or drug dealer.

Drugs give me a feeling of euphoria I can get nowhere else.
Euphoric sensations are better than any other kind.
Therefore I ought to take drugs.

In the first instance, if I ‘retaliate first’ then I risk someone else doing the same to me. I have become part of the problem. I am helping to create the type of society in which people are murdered ‘just in case’. Reasonable people wouldn’t want to live in that type of society so we ought to do our best to break that cycle.

In the second, if stealing was morally correct then I risk my worldly goods being stolen. Reasonable people don’t want that to happen, so we ought not to steal.

In the third, the type of pleasure you get is transient. It may be temporarily pleasurable but no reasonable person would be able to live a satisfying and fulfilling life simply by taking drugs on a daily basis. So we ought not to do it.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

In the first instance, if I ‘retaliate first’ then I risk someone else doing the same to me. I have become part of the problem. I am helping to create the type of society in which people are murdered ‘just in case’. Reasonable people wouldn’t want to live in that type of society so we ought to do our best to break that cycle.

In the second, if stealing was morally correct then I risk my worldly goods being stolen. Reasonable people don’t want that to happen, so we ought not to steal.

In the third, the type of pleasure you get is transient. It may be temporarily pleasurable but no reasonable person would be able to live a satisfying and fulfilling life simply by taking drugs on a daily basis. So we ought not to do it.

There is a person I know who befriended a wealthy old lady, convinced her that he was trustworthy and that everyone else was out to get her, and convinced her to give him power of attorney and will him everything. Her chauffeur and live in caregiver who had both been her friends for many years as well as all her relatives received nothing because he invented lies and conspiracies regarding them. This man then spent her fortune on a nice house and a protestant church which he used as his personal cult, until for some reason, still unknown to me, he had to skip town to Hawaii. Now is such a lifestyle of fraud and confidence tricks immoral? You gain much and lose little and frequently don’t have to break any laws. I agree for the sort who like to settle down it might not be pleasant, but for many it is an engaging and rewarding life style. Is it morally wrong?

 

[Bradski]

Now is such a lifestyle of fraud and confidence tricks immoral?

Would you think that any reasonable person would like to live in a society in which fraud is acceptable? If it was acceptable then you wouldn’t be able to trust anyone and no-one would trust you. So we ought to condemn fraud and those who commit it.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Would you think that any reasonable person would like to live in a society in which fraud is acceptable? If it was acceptable then you wouldn’t be able to trust anyone and no-one would trust you. So we ought to condemn fraud and those who commit it.

If that reasonable person were a fraud and a cheat then yes they would; they’re okay with not trusting, and obtaining trust is a valued and refined skill.

Is it immoral?

 

[Bradski]

If that reasonable person were a fraud and a cheat then yes they would; they’re okay with not trusting, and obtaining trust is a valued and refined skill.

Yes, trust is to be valued and I’m sure that everyone would prefer to be trusted than to be treated with suspicion. Even the fraudster would prefer that his friends and his family trusted him. So there is a general consensus that it is better to act honestly than dishonestly.

Even the fraud realises this because he couldn’t cheat someone if everyone was suspicious of everyone else. So It is better for society as a whole that we are honest in our dealings. So we ought not to cheat.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Yes, trust is to be valued and I’m sure that everyone would prefer to be trusted than to be treated with suspicion. Even the fraudster would prefer that his friends and his family trusted him. So there is a general consensus that it is better to act honestly than dishonestly.

Even the fraud realises this because he couldn’t cheat someone if everyone was suspicious of everyone else. So It is better for society as a whole that we are honest in our dealings. So we ought not to cheat.

On the contrary, my real world example only worked because the old lady was so suspicious of everyone; a suspicion he, a practiced con artist, easily turned to his advantage.

Is it immoral?

 

[Portofino]

If that reasonable person were a fraud and a cheat then yes they would; they’re okay with not trusting, and obtaining trust is a valued and refined skill.

Is it immoral?

If one does not grant an absolute morality then no, it’s not immoral per se.

However, actions have consequences, and the person who defrauds or cheats others “ought” to be clear as to whether he can accept those consequences.

For example, on a more obvious level, the consequences are:

*he could be arrested and deprived of his freedom
*he could provoke retaliation from others, who discover what he’s up to

On a more subtle, psychological level, the consequences could be just as severe:

*lying and cheating becomes so inveterate that it affects all of his relationships, so that even those who are closest to him cannot trust him; he will alienate family and friends, and may find himself alone

*if his friends – or cohorts – are just like him (“birds of a feather flock together”) then he cannot trust them, either

*if he is so untrustworthy, he may have a hard time trusting anyone else (because, of course, he will suspect everyone he meets of being as dishonest as he himself is )

*a fraud and a cheater can only procure for himself material goods (e.g., money, stolen property); if this individual is a fraud and a cheater, then he’s likely someone who believes that these things will procure him lasting happiness; however, he may be mistaken in this model of long-term happiness (does an inveterate gambler make a winning and then walk away from the table? Retire on his winnings in perfect peace of mind? To the contrary, he wants more, and nothing is ever enough – he is perpetually dissatisfied)

*as unlikely as it may seem, he may have more compassionate impulses within himself – a product of his upbringing, let’s say – meaning that cheating and fraud give him an increasing sense of guilt and low self-worth; perhaps he cannot forget, for example, the look of grief and confusion on the face of an old girlfriend he cheated (someone whom a part of him actually cared about, but he couldn’t help himself)

Indeed, there’s also a sense of empathy that has nothing to do with “morality”, per se (in the sense that empathy still exists in socialized human beings, whether or not there is an absolute morality), whereby the potential cheat or fraud simply says, “gee, I know how I would feel if someone did this to me. I have no desire to cheat or defraud others.” Or, “gee, I’m a real nobody. People are *smart *not to trust me.”

But if he doesn’t think this way… Well, what system of morality can guarantee that anyone *will *think this way?

So long as there’s free will, you will always have Christians (as well) who lie, cheat, and defraud others. They may not be good Christians, but they exist nonetheless.

The reasons I gave above may actually help a “bad Christian” to get his head on straight!

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

If one does not grant an absolute morality then no, it’s not immoral per se.

However, actions have consequences, and the person who defrauds or cheats others “ought” to be clear as to whether he can accept those consequences.

For example, on a more obvious level, the consequences are:

*he could be arrested and deprived of his freedom
*he could provoke retaliation from others, who discover what he’s up to

On a more subtle, psychological level, the consequences could be just as severe:

*lying and cheating becomes so inveterate that it affects all of his relationships, so that even those who are closest to him cannot trust him; he will alienate family and friends, and may find himself alone

*if his friends – or cohorts – are just like him (“birds of a feather flock together”) then he cannot trust them, either

*if he is so untrustworthy, he may have a hard time trusting anyone else (because, of course, he will suspect everyone he meets of being as dishonest as he himself is )

*a fraud and a cheater can only procure for himself material goods (e.g., money, stolen property); if this individual is a fraud and a cheater, then he’s likely someone who believes that these things will procure him lasting happiness; however, he may be mistaken in this model of long-term happiness (does an inveterate gambler make a winning and then walk away from the table? Retire on his winnings in perfect peace of mind? To the contrary, he wants more, and nothing is ever enough – he is perpetually dissatisfied)

*as unlikely as it may seem, he may have more compassionate impulses within himself – a product of his upbringing, let’s say – meaning that cheating and fraud give him an increasing sense of guilt and low self-worth; perhaps he cannot forget, for example, the look of grief and confusion on the face of an old girlfriend he cheated (someone whom a part of him actually cared about, but he couldn’t help himself)

Indeed, there’s also a sense of empathy that has nothing to do with “morality”, per se (in the sense that empathy still exists in socialized human beings, whether or not there is an absolute morality), whereby the potential cheat or fraud simply says, “gee, I know how I would feel if someone did this to me. I have no desire to cheat or defraud others.” Or, “gee, I’m a real nobody. People are *smart *not to trust me.”

But if he doesn’t think this way… Well, what system of morality can guarantee that anyone *will *think this way?

So long as there’s free will, you will always have Christians (as well) who lie, cheat, and defraud others. They may not be good Christians, but they exist nonetheless.

The reasons I gave above may actually help a “bad Christian” to get his head on straight!

But we’ve already established that (and now we moved into hypothetical.) he is absolutely fine with the consequences, and need not defraud in a manner that is technically illegal and so faces no jail time; even if he were he has the money for the best lawyers. He is sitting pretty with all the means necessary, if not to buy happiness, then at least a better brand of misery. He is on top of the world at the great emotional and fiscal expense of others all through lying and cheating, but none of this is immoral. Good to know.

 

[St_Francis]

For any issue of moral relevance, but specifically I have in mind such issues as human homosexuality (the sexual acts, not same-sex attraction), abortion, artificial reproduction.

---

As a sidenote, somewhat: I remember in some of his debates with non-theists, Christian philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig, accused them of commiting this fallacy whenever, in the context of discussing the foundation of universally binding moral propositions – they attempted to ground morality upon evolution and conditions that are conducive to human flourishing.

For example – I’m paraphrasing them – “if murder were tolerated as a norm, it would compromise the survivability of the human race …therefore we should not murder” or “rape violates the will of and physically and emotionally injurs the victim…therefore we should not rape” and Dr. Craig would respond: – again I’m paraphrasing – " You are saying that there are certain acts which cause social disturbance and that we find distasteful, and these acts you label as immoral or evil, things which ought not be done. But how do you get from an “is” to an “ought”? What compels the ought?"

---

Things are ordered toward certain ends = Is.
We should respect the ends to which things are ordered (should not disorder) = Ought.

Fallacy?

Re: Does appeal to natural law commit the naturalistic fallacy? No. Natural law is a completely separate thing from nature, and understanding a point of natural law is different from understanding an aspect of nature.

Natural law is written on our hearts, but it *is *what one can deduce by watching how things work. We see that a society in which people murder each other is not viable, so we understand that murder is wrong. We see that a society in which people lie and commit fraud is unsustainable, so we understand that lying is wrong. Etc.

Nature, of course, is a different thing altogether. But a lot of people confuse natural law with the laws of nature, so sometimes our conversations get a little muddled in this area.

 

[Portofino]

But we’ve already established that (and now we moved into hypothetical.) he is absolutely fine with the consequences, and need not defraud in a manner that is technically illegal and so faces no jail time; even if he were he has the money for the best lawyers. He is sitting pretty with all the means necessary, if not to buy happiness, then at least a better brand of misery. He is on top of the world at the great emotional and fiscal expense of others all through lying and cheating, but none of this is immoral. Good to know.

Well, I realized I should have been more candid – I feel it to be immoral, but I can’t prove that it is. I don’t think any of us can prove it is immoral, without begging the question (“it’s wrong because it’s wrong”). Recourse to God or to Scripture – or to church authority – do not make the statement, “it’s wrong because it’s wrong” any less tautological.

But I persist in not envying such an individual, just as I don’t envy the individual who “cheats” the system (through life-long welfare payments, say) and does not suffer any obvious consequences. It doesn’t bother me, that folks may be collecting welfare on my dime. I do not envy them. From my vantage point, there are “diminished horizons” (both externally, and psychologically) in such behavior, and that goes for the Gordon Gekkos of the world. They are missing out on an awful lot in life, in my estimation (things that can’t be bought and that lying and cheating not only can’t give you, but make you incapable of enjoying). But, of course, let’s assume that such people do not care – what can you do? Do you think telling them that their behavior is “objectively wrong” is going to sway them? Besides, maybe they don’t believe that, and say that “God wants us to be successful” and “it’s not wrong because ‘business is business.’”

But I also don’t think the consequences I had outlined below can be dismissed so easily. Potential jail time (even with the best lawyers in the world); damaged relationships (including, potentially, damage to relationships with your own wife and children, where ‘business is business’ begins to infiltrate your personal life); lingering dissatisfaction and anger that, as much as you’ve acquired, you still want more.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Well, I realized I should have been more candid – I feel it to be immoral, but I can’t prove that it is. I don’t think any of us can prove it is immoral, without begging the question (“it’s wrong because it’s wrong”). Recourse to God or to Scripture – or to church authority – do not make the statement, “it’s wrong because it’s wrong” any less tautological.

The claim is not that it is wrong because it is wrong, but rather because God who is author of what is right says it is. You feel it is wrong because it violates the law written on your heart.

 

[Bradski]

On the contrary, my real world example only worked because the old lady was so suspicious of everyone; a suspicion he, a practiced con artist, easily turned to his advantage.

Well, that’s not a world in which we’d like to live. Which is precisely my point. We don’t want to have a society where little old ladies are suspicious of everyone. So fraud is something we frown on.

I’m not sure why we’re debating this particular point. We both think that fraud is wrong. I suspect you think it’s ‘wrong because it’s wrong - isn’t it obvious’. Maybe because God has told you that it’s wrong by writing it in your heart. I’m good with that, but it doesn’t work for me because I don’t believe in God.

Yet I can agree with you that murder, fraud, theft, assault etc are all wrong. Maybe you think that God has written these ‘rules’ into my heart as well, so the fact that I don’t believe in Him doesn’t really matter.

If that’s the case, then I’m not likely to be able to persuade you otherwise. But even if there were no God, if you woke up tomorrow with no conception of God, you would still be able to give me practical reasons why people should not lie, steal, murder etc. That’s what I’m doing to you.

You seem frustrated by that.