UnderGround Forums
 

PhilosophyGround >> Naturalistic fallacy and Is-ought


8/8/06 10:51 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Indrek R.
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Aug-06
Member Since: 07/04/2002
Posts: 1309
 
It irks me when people confuse those two or use them interchangeably so I thought I´d rant a bit and let you know about it (that it irks me) :) The NATURALISTIC FALLACY (coined by Moore) states that "good" cannot be equated by something "natural" like pleasure or survival etc. This is what he thought he proved with "the open question argument". Moore thought that "good" was unanalysable and a simple property discovered by intuition. This has been debated and is debatable, but very few would try to debate the fact-value distinction. The is-ought or to be more precise the FACT-VALUE distinction says that you cannot derive any values from plain brutal valueless facts. No ought from a completely valueless is (as in Searle´s example the "is" is already a value-laden one). AS you can see thosw two things are quite different. I do not think the naturalistic fallacy holds true at all, but I think that the fact-value distinction is quite true.
8/8/06 6:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Aug-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 13230
great!
8/9/06 1:56 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
winnidon
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Aug-06
Member Since: 11/30/2002
Posts: 178
Why don't you think the naturalistic fallacy holds true at all? I don't think that 'the Open Question Argument' proves, as Moore maintains, a naturalistic fallacy but there seems to be good reason to think that naturalist attempts to define (account for?) good have been--and will be?--crucially flawed.
8/19/06 11:57 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Indrek R.
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 19-Aug-06 11:59 AM
Member Since: 07/04/2002
Posts: 1312
Winnidon I might have not been precise enough. The "naturalistic fallacy" says something akin to that The Good (underlying thing or property behind all that is valued) cannot be equated with anything natural (ex. pleasure) and THEREFORE The Good must be a simple property discovered by special intuition. now there are two possibilities that can be tied to it: (a) The Good is taken to exist and thought to be discovered by intuition (b) Although nat. fallacy is taken to be a real fallacy, the existence of The Good is denied and good is taken to mean something as "commendation" or "subjective preference" in broad outline. It seems to me that most think that committing oneself to approving the "naturalistic fallacy" ties you automatically with (a) and therefore I said that I do not think it holds true at all. But if you tie it to (b) then I think it holds. In the case of (b) nat. fallacy is just taken as a good argument against any naturalist realist arguments, but it doesn´t commit one to intuitionism. Such an underlying realist property that gives value to everything that is valued is just denied and values can be analysed in relation to the desires of subjects. Greets, Indrek
8/20/06 2:55 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
winnidon
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Aug-06
Member Since: 11/30/2002
Posts: 180
"In the case of (b) nat. fallacy is just taken as a good argument against any naturalist realist arguments, but it doesn?t commit one to intuitionism." ah - I see what you are saying and agree. I think part of my problem with the 'naturalistic fallacy' is when it is purported to show that naturalism is a fallacy rather than a good argument against it.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.