Naturalistic Fallacy

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Is/ought fallacy; Argument to nature.

Description

The advocate claims that because something is natural or exists in nature, it is by definition good. And/or the advocate derives 'ought' from 'is' without any compelling (and reasonable) link.

Example

Talk show host Grant Haggard has invited guest Riley Hardge on his show to discuss proposed gay marriage legislation. Hardge, attempts to bring up Haggard's recent arrest for public obscenity: "So Grant, you admit you were in the park that afternoon, and given you had binoculars I would normally believe you when you say you were bird watching. But why did witnesses see you in your van with your pants off?"

Haggard ignores the questions, turns to the camera and states: "The issue at stake here is the nature of family and life itself. Enacting this legislation would be commiting a crime against nature. The natural state of affairs is for marriage to be one man and one woman, so we can maintain the family unit. Look no further than the humble beaver. Both mother and father beaver have essential roles in the family unit. They mate for life and raise their young together, as a team. Just like humans do!"

Comment

Haggard's argument is wrong in two significant ways. The first, and most obvious, is that he has cherry picked one example from nature, from millions, to make his point. He has Stacked the Deck. One can demonstrate this easily by picking a fun counter example. Bonobos, for example, exhibit almost the complete opposite behaviour to beavers. They are overly promiscuous, engaging in opposite sex, same sex, and multiple partner sexual behavour, as frequently as humans shake hands.

The other way in which he is wrong is the Naturalistic Fallacy. Giving his example the benefit of the doubt, let's say that in nature homosexuality does not occur besides in humans. So? There is no compelling logic or link from the way things are (a description) to the way things ought to be (an ethical position). Haggard is essentially Begging the Question. He has presupposed that the way beavers live is good.

Another example of the Naturalistic Fallacy is the most basic argument in favour of Social Darwinism - a theory of societal ethics which claims its basis is in nature (evolution by natural selection - though it has a closer resemblance to selective breeding). Social Darwinists argued that if nature is this way (only the ‘fittest’ survive), then it ought to be this way with various features of society. (It has been mostly used as a justification for laissez-faire economics and eugenics.) But as with the previous example, this is an unfounded leap.

An argument in support of an ethical theory needs a better claim than, because something is done this way, it ought to be. This has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong, good or bad. It is simply a statement of (supposed) fact. To get from a fact to an ethical value, there needs to be some kind of compelling argument about the ‘goodness’ or ‘evilness’ of the fact. For this to happen we need an agreed upon ‘good,’ and an agreed upon ‘evil’. (Note, this is a very simplistic treatment of Social Darwinism - and arguments not based on ‘is-ought’ with respect to the ‘goodness’ of laissez-faire economics and eugenics have been made by many.)

 

Race doesn't exist, because if it did, that'd be bad!

The following is a Letter to the Editor of the New York Times:

To the Editor: Race is not a fact rooted in nature, but an ideology that justifies treating people differently based on the meanings we attribute to physical differences. When people are subjected to poor treatment, diagnostic delay and unhealthy environments because of the color of their skin, "race" impairs their health. The ideology of race can have real biological consequences.

Lynn M. Morgan
South Hadley, Mass.
March 15, 2005
(The writer is an anthropology professor at Mount Holyoke College.)

This is a clear case of an Argument to Consequences. In fact, she herself says so: "Race is not a fact rooted in nature, but an ideology… The ideology of race can have real biological consequences." Maybe it can have biological consequences, but this is evidence of bigotry, not evidence against race as a 'fact' rooted in nature. If people attempt to use any 'fact' to justify racism - they are making the Naturalistic Fallacy - attempting to derive ought (as in 'we should') from is - and should be vehemently rebutted on this ground. But the perceived risk of bigotry 'justified' by scientific discovery is not reason for arguing that the discovery is false.

She also has engaged in a few more fallacies in this letter. She makes an anthropological Factoid Propagation with race is: "…an ideology". And shows her Simple Minded Certitude with the statement: "Race is not a fact rooted in nature…".

Here are some extracts from the article she was responding to:

…a 2002 study by scientists at the University of Southern California and Stanford showed that if a sample of people from around the world are sorted by computer into five groups on the basis of genetic similarity, the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia - more or less the major races of traditional anthropology.

Ironically, the acceptance of the genetic basis of race will have, if anything, positive consequences. It's not racist to individualize the treatment and prevention of disease based on race, if there are clear differences in the efficacy of these treatments and prevention techniques between racial groups. To do anything but would be sheer folly:

…the recognition of race may improve medical care. Different races are prone to different diseases. The risk that an African-American man will be afflicted with hypertensive heart disease or prostate cancer is nearly three times greater than that for a European-American man. On the other hand, the former's risk of multiple sclerosis is only half as great. Such differences could be due to socioeconomic factors. Even so, geneticists have started searching for racial differences in the frequencies of genetic variants that cause diseases. They seem to be finding them.

Race can also affect treatment. African-Americans respond poorly to some of the main drugs used to treat heart conditions - notably beta blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Pharmaceutical corporations are paying attention. Many new drugs now come labeled with warnings that they may not work in some ethnic or racial groups.

The author of this article is careful to qualify all of the above with the following caveat, thus avoiding any Unfounded Generalizations:

Such differences are, of course, just differences in average. Everyone agrees that race is a crude way of predicting who gets some disease or responds to some treatment. Ideally, we would all have our genomes sequenced before swallowing so much as an aspirin. Yet until that is technically feasible, we can expect racial classifications to play an increasing part in health care.

Ignoring scientific discoveries to (falsely) feel morally superior does no-one any favours. We need to deal with reality, not fantasy.