The Naturalistic Fallacy

Basicly the naturalistic fallacy asserts that: "you can't get an ought from an is".Historically the Naturalistic Fallacy has been used by Darwinists to dismiss all links of Darwinism to various political and religious convictions (or lack of religious convictions as meaningless. Darwinism could as by definition of the Naturalistic Fallacy, not have been the source of any influence on a persons moral convictions. Obviously the philosphy of the Naturalistic Fallacy has been a very convenient tool for Darwinists in dismissing criticism.But I think this philosophy is lacking in several aspects. First of all it asserts that science is free from valuejudgements as a statement of fact, in stead of asserting it as a valuejudgement. It is to say that they don't support the ideal to have science be free from valuejudgements. All they have to do, as is very typical of pseudoscientific texts, is to add the statement, "what you read next is science, and therefore neutral". Racist literature and advertising for commercial products are full of statements like that.Besides that it is also an intrusive philosophy that undermines many people's personal beliefs. For instance the moral theory of natural rights makes much use of getting an ought from an is. "People are largely the same, therefore they have equal rights" Statements like that become questionable by applying the naturalistic fallacy.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Basicly the naturalistic fallacy asserts that: "you can't get an ought from an is".

​

Historically the Naturalistic Fallacy has been used by Darwinists to dismiss all links of Darwinism to various political and religious convictions (or lack of religious convictions as meaningless. Darwinism could as by definition of the Naturalistic Fallacy, not have been the source of any influence on a persons moral convictions. Obviously the philosphy of the Naturalistic Fallacy has been a very convenient tool for Darwinists in dismissing criticism.

​

But I think this philosophy is lacking in several aspects. First of all it asserts that science is free from valuejudgements as a statement of fact, in stead of asserting it as a valuejudgement. It is to say that they don't support the ideal to have science be free from valuejudgements. All they have to do, as is very typical of pseudoscientific texts, is to add the statement, "what you read next is science, and therefore neutral". Racist literature and advertising for commercial products are full of statements like that.

​

Besides that it is also an intrusive philosophy that undermines many people's personal beliefs. For instance the moral theory of natural rights makes much use of getting an ought from an is. "People are largely the same, therefore they have equal rights" Statements like that become questionable by applying the naturalistic fallacy.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

​

---

So you would argue that it isn't people who kill people, its guns that kill people?PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

--deleted---[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 11-19-2002]