Difference between revisions of "Naturalistic fallacy"
(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...) |
|||
| 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]]: | 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 | + | Abortion is the murder of an innocent fetus. |
Therefore, abortion is wrong. | Therefore, abortion is wrong. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Moore successfully argued that this argument misses a vital step of reasoning, and should read: | Moore successfully argued that this argument misses a vital step of reasoning, and should read: | ||
| − | Abortion is the murder of an innocent | + | Abortion is the murder of an innocent fetus. |
Murder of innocents is wrong. | Murder of innocents is wrong. | ||
Revision as of 22:55, March 27, 2007
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 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 fetus.
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 fetus.
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.