We get morality from reason and empathy — NKBJ
The naturalistic fallacy is a well-established logical fallacy in the discipline — NKBJ
I have specifically pointed out they are being killed for food and not for fun. It is not wrong to kill another species for food. Humans even eat each other in famine as a means of survival. — Andrew4Handel
I don't agree with the concept of a naturalistic fallacy because... where else but nature can we get moral guidance from?
I think all asserting a naturalistic fallacy does, is lead to moral nihilism. It could only be sustained by a supernaturalistic morality.
Why is the naturalistic fallacy a fallacy? Basically, it isn't at all clear that X is good necessarily follows from X is natural. — petrichor
How do we decide what is natural? — petrichor
I think that until someone can demonstrate a strong connection between naturalness and goodness, we can safely dispense with the idea that the naturalness criterion can be used to justify eating meat or abstaining from eating meat. — petrichor
People often talk about such things as our tooth structure as evidence of what we should be eating. To show that we "evolved to eat meat" or otherwise is simply to show that at some point in the past, our species did such and such and managed to survive and propagate the species while doing this or partly by means of this practice. So would we then be wise to argue that whatever aided the survival of our ancestors is automatically okay for us? — petrichor
So invoking this fallacy helps neither side of the argument. — Andrew4Handel
So invoking this fallacy helps neither side of the argument. — Andrew4Handel
But then due to the naturalistic fallacy you can't argue homosexuality is good just because it is widespread in nature.
You can use fallacious argument if you like for pure rhetorical purposes. This is common practice. But if you want to get closer to truth, fallacies must be avoided. It doesn't matter whether you like the conclusions of a fallacious argument or find a fallacious argument useful in persuasion. If the conclusion doesn't clearly follow from the premises, the premises simply cannot be used to justify the claim. If you allow arguments where conclusions don't obviously follow from the premises, pretty much any conclusion could be claimed to be a consequence of pretty much any premise — petrichor
It is not the case that everything that is natural is good but that things that are good are natural processes. — Andrew4Handel
I consider natural just to refer to anything that happens in nature as opposed to a supernatural realm that we either have no access to or doesn't exist — Andrew4Handel
Do you see yet how all this talk of whether or not something is natural is basically irrelevant to the question of its goodness? — petrichor
you're supposed to avoid trying to derive an ought from an is altogether no matter what side you're on.... — NKBJ
I think that it is arbitrary what you define as natural. I don't think the phrase natural picks out a concrete concept but then I didn't coin the naturalistic fallacy. — Andrew4Handel
The only point I want to make here is that there is not another realm for goodness (or pleasure to come from) — Andrew4Handel
I am not claiming eating meat is good because it is natural because at this point we are just discussing where goodness comes from. — Andrew4Handel
I believe unnatural often means man made and/or deviating from natures supposed purpose. The point then is that some things originated solely from humans and we can be held accountable for them. — Andrew4Handel
My reasoning is that if something is a necessary part of nature there is no reason to alienate ourself from it. — Andrew4Handel
I think nature is innately harmful and cannot be improved. — Andrew4Handel
I can see no reason why we should alter our bodies and use supplements to make ourselves as if Herbivores. To me that is an unnecessary sacrifice. (To an imaginary moral standard/realm) — Andrew4Handel
But as I have said from near the beginning I am a moral nihilist and I find no moral claims convincing.
If I was looking for someone to ultimately blame for harm it would be whatever force created life. — Andrew4Handel
I think that finding homosexuality in nature is a positive thing for people who have faced prejudice and persecution and vilification. — Andrew4Handel
It is the equivalent to the support any minority gets to discover they are not alone or alien or not an aberration but just a part of nature, your own normal. — Andrew4Handel
I am not sure I accept the idea that an ought can never derive from an is. Let me explain. It is hard to see why an ought would follow from an objective state of affairs. But what if we take seriously the idea that subjective experience is real? — petrichor
Speaking as a homosexual myself I think that finding homosexuality in nature is a positive thing for people who have faced prejudice and persecution and vilification. — Andrew4Handel
Again: so because humans must die (and death is never "nice") it is therefore okay to kill them? — NKBJ
So it's only right to be a cannibal when there's a famine? How more arbitrary can you get? — Buxtebuddha
Where are you getting that from? And what's the relevance to what was said in the quote that you were replying to? The point, as I understood it, was that they'll likely have a better life and a better death this way than they would in nature, and I think that that's a good point which deserves a proper answer. (And there is such a thing as a better death, and you know it). — Sapientia
You may find it normalizing, and that's great if it helps you emotionally--but it still doesn't make it right or wrong. Ethically, the "naturalness" of homosexuality (or anything else) simply doesn't matter. — NKBJ
You say that all animals must die anyway, and use that to justify killing them for food/our own pleasure. — NKBJ
a) Don't pretend we're killing the billions of cows, pigs, and chickens we eat every year for their own good. — NKBJ
b) Some deaths may be preferable to others, but living is preferable to either. — NKBJ
c) It is not for us to decide for the animal when it should die. — NKBJ
Counter example: someone you know has cancer and will die a painful death. Are you allowed to put him/her out of his/her misery when s/he doesn't wish to die yet? — NKBJ
If only evolutionary natural things were good, — NKBJ
It is not for us to decide for the animal when it should die. Counter example: someone you know has cancer and will die a painful death. Are you allowed to put him/her out of his/her misery when s/he doesn't wish to die yet? — NKBJ
And before we can decide whether or not natural things are good, we need to know what goodness is! Do you know what it is? — petrichor
, I tend to think that this child's suffering matters regardless of whether it bothers me or not. It would matter even if nobody existed but the torturer and the child. — petrichor
Perhaps pain, in itself, is sort of a real ought-not — petrichor
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.