Naturalistic fallacy - Revision history

DavidB4-bot: /* top */clean up & uniformity

2016-07-13T16:30:27Z

top: clean up & uniformity

BrianCo: sp

2007-08-08T06:39:06Z

DanH: removed liberal bias

2007-08-08T03:54:49Z

removed liberal bias

Elamdri at 22:55, March 27, 2007

2007-03-27T22:55:04Z

Mark444: New page: The Naturalistic Fallacy is an ontological principle which states that 'it is impossible to derive an ought from an is'. In more general terms, it is impossible to logically progress f...

2007-03-27T22:32:08Z

New page: The Naturalistic Fallacy is an ontological principle which states that 'it is impossible to derive an ought from an is'. In more general terms, it is impossible to logically progress f...

New page

The Naturalistic Fallacy is an [[ontological principle]] which states that 'it is impossible to derive an ought from an is'. In more general terms, it is impossible to logically progress from an observation of the physical world to a [[normative ethics|normative ethical]] system or make moral statements.

It was very roughly proposed by [[Hume]], and is also known as 'Hume's Guillotine', but later expanded on in much greater detail by Moore. He observed that all moral statemnets, most clearly [[psuedo-syllogisms]], progress using flawed [[implicit logic]]. Take, for instance, the following common argument against [[abortion]]:

Abortion is the murder of an innocent foetus.

Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Moore successfully argued that this argument misses a vital step of reasoning, and should read:

Abortion is the murder of an innocent foetus.

Murder of innocents is wrong.

Therefore, abortion is wrong.

He then went on to argue that there is no way of logically showing the premise that the [[murder]] of [[innocents]] is '[[wrong]]'- there is no logical argument which can be made to show this is true or false. Moore, however, was not arguing that ethics is [[fatally flawed]], but argued that this was a problem that affected most [[normative ethical systems]] and needed to be addressed.

[[Category: Ontological Principles]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:30, July 13, 2016
Line 5:		Line 5:
	He then went on to argue that there is no way of logically showing the premise that the [[murder]] of [[innocents]] is '[[wrong]]'- there is no logical argument which can be made to show this is true or false. Moore, however, was not arguing that ethics is [[fatally flawed]], but argued that this was a problem that affected most [[normative ethical systems]] and needed to be addressed.		He then went on to argue that there is no way of logically showing the premise that the [[murder]] of [[innocents]] is '[[wrong]]'- there is no logical argument which can be made to show this is true or false. Moore, however, was not arguing that ethics is [[fatally flawed]], but argued that this was a problem that affected most [[normative ethical systems]] and needed to be addressed.

−	[[Category: Ontological Principles]]	+	[[Category:Ontological Principles]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 The Naturalistic Fallacy is an [[ontological principle]] which states that 'it is impossible to derive an ought from an is'. In more general terms, it is impossible to logically progress from an observation of the physical world to a [[normative ethics|normative ethical]] system or make moral statements.
-It was very roughly proposed by [[Hume]], and is also known as 'Hume's Guillotine', but later expanded on in much greater detail by Moore. He observed that all moral statemnets, most clearly [[psuedo-syllogisms]], progress using flawed [[implicit logic]].
+It was very roughly proposed by [[Hume]], and is also known as 'Hume's Guillotine', but later expanded on in much greater detail by Moore. He observed that all moral statements, most clearly [[psuedo-syllogisms]], progress using flawed [[implicit logic]].
 He then went on to argue that there is no way of logically showing the premise that the [[murder]] of [[innocents]] is '[[wrong]]'- there is no logical argument which can be made to show this is true or false. Moore, however, was not arguing that ethics is [[fatally flawed]], but argued that this was a problem that affected most [[normative ethical systems]] and needed to be addressed.
 [[Category: Ontological Principles]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 It was very roughly proposed by [[Hume]], and is also known as 'Hume's Guillotine', but later expanded on in much greater detail by Moore. He observed that all moral statemnets, most clearly [[psuedo-syllogisms]], progress using flawed [[implicit logic]]. Take, for instance, the following common argument against [[abortion]]:
-Abortion is the murder of an innocent foetus.
+Abortion is the murder of an innocent fetus.
 Therefore, abortion is wrong.
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 Moore successfully argued that this argument misses a vital step of reasoning, and should read:
-Abortion is the murder of an innocent foetus.
+Abortion is the murder of an innocent fetus.
 Murder of innocents is wrong.