Set out what each of the fallacies requires in order to be a fallacy of that kind.

Rational people are not always good, nor are all rational minds, acts, etc. So, I'm not sure what you're aiming at here.

Reification (also known as concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity.[1] In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. For example: if the phrase "holds another's affection", is taken literally, affection would be reified.

Another common manifestation is the confusion of a model with reality. Mathematical or simulation models may help understand a system or situation but real life always differs from the model.

Note that reification is generally accepted in literature and other forms of discourse where reified abstractions are understood to be intended metaphorically,[1] but the use of reification in logical arguments is usually regarded as a fallacy. For example, "Justice is blind; the blind cannot read printed laws; therefore, to print laws cannot serve justice." In rhetoric, it may be sometimes difficult to determine if reification was used correctly or incorrectly.

====

In philosophical ethics, the term naturalistic fallacy was introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.[1] Moore argues it would be fallacious to explain that which is good reductively, in terms of natural properties such as pleasant or desirable.

----

Does that help?

Rational people are not always good, nor are all rational minds, acts, etc. So, I'm not sure what you're aiming at here. — creativesoul

No, it's treating the sentence: What is good is rational, as an empirical or truth-apt sentence, that gives rise to the above.

Let's take for example the notion that;

What is good is rational. — Wallows

I have no idea what this means. To me rational is an adjective referring to the process via which one decides or concludes something. One can even rationally decide something that, it turns out, is incorrect. This happens in science, policework, everyday life. Good things would either refer to things that are Good in and of themselves, whatever that means or they are things that are good for someone, from their perspective. To me this is all apples and bicycles.

These are both informal fallacies, not logical fallacies.

These are both informal fallacies, not logical fallacies. — Banno

Can you explain how this relates to the OP? Have I made some mistakes in the above?

Defining good is surely an abstraction.

Benefience, righteousness, virtue; there is a balance of all these involved in what's good.

Yes, some beneficent things are good.

No, not all beneficent things are good.

Defining good as benefience, abstracts good; fact.

It must need a new type of word, symbolic of it's wild nature.

Only in the title.

Only in the title. — Banno

Fixed,

So what are your thoughts about these thoughts? More why isn't bicycle isn't fruit or something else?

Fixed — Wallows

You ought take the word logical out of the OP, too.

I'm not seeing the reification. Wouldn't that be more like asking what shape The Good has? Or how much it weighs?

You ought take the word logical out of the OP, too. — Banno

Done.

I'm not seeing the reification. — Banno

Well, the reification arises in a self-referential manner. Does that make better sense?

Not seeing it.

One would expose the naturalistic fallacy using an open question - suppose we have an act that we agree is rational. It is still open to us to ask if it is good. Hence being rational is not the very same as being good.

But one of us might Trump it out, brazenly claiming that no, because it is rational, it is indeed good.

Not seeing it. — Banno

OK, so isn't rationality an intrinsic/abstract feature of human nature? Therefore, trying to objectify it gives rise to reification, no?

isn't rationality an intrinsic feature of human nature? — Wallows

That's an enlightenment notion, probably due to Kant. Too much of what is human is irrational for rationality to be considered intrinsic to humanity. But that's not to say that rationality is a virtue, perhaps to be striven towards.

One might be reifying it if one were to talk of it's being extracted, divided, given away.

But attempting to define what it is to be rational does not seem to me to be reification. Being rational is, among other things, following an argument to it's logical conclusion. No reification there.

That's an enlightenment notion, probably due to Kant. Too much of what is human is irrational for rationality to be considered intrinsic to humanity. But that's not to say that rationality is a virtue, perhaps to be striven towards.

One might be reifying it if one were to talk of it's being extracted, divided, given away.

But attempting to define what it is to be rational does not seem to me to be reification. Being rational as, among other things, following an argument to it's logical conclusion. No reification there. — Banno

Yes, well, in isolation the reification doesn't take place wheheras if one assumes that rationalist attitude, then yes?

Taking a minor good that's possibly majorly evil, the games I own that subjectively, I find good.

There's no short supply of new games, good is increasing, but lone behold, the resource required for games to be produced is decreasing, and it may be required for humans to exist.

The universe is expanding, increasing in matter and energy, some people find this good. There is what's achievable good, and what's not, per sey, survive unlimited games.

Fuck it, this is my last attempt at good heat for a while. Sorry, it's a bit too much. It really annoys me how difficult this subject is.

What?

I give up I can't work it out.

Reification already assumes a dichotomy between physical and nonphysical... real and idea.

That dichotomy is inherently inadequate for taking proper account of that which is both. So...

The naturalistic fallacy typically involves denying that all naturally occurring things/events are good. With that sentiment, I wholeheartedly agree.

That dichotomy is inherently inadequate for taking proper account of that which is both — creativesoul

Why is that?

It's not a matter of why, it's a matter of how.

When everything is broken down, categorized, and/or otherwise classified into one or the other... then by method and/or 'definition' alone... nothing is both.

And yet...

Many things are.

Sorry, can you explain this further?

Reasoning is definition of thought in terms of a practical function, its role in formulating perceptions as mechanistic cause and effect for the technological interaction of our bodies with the environment. Reasoning is ethically good because it is a practical means to decide which behaviors will cause the greatest mutual benefit. Mutual benefit is possible because of extreme likeness between the basic needs of every human: food, shelter, clothing, health, and community. Our reality can be forced into a different form with culture, but this simple template is probably why human existence in civilized contexts was initially even possible. We share our essential criteria for life, and have the cognitive reasoning to recognize this and construct sustainable, highly adaptive collectives accordingly.

Vicissitudes of nature, the unconscious, and behavior in institutional settings can cause reasoning, our practical problem-solving, to degenerate, and constantly has. Reasoning is a means to achieve human goals, a prerequisite of the biologically rare type of good we might call socialized actualization, but is not in unconditional control.

Makes me wonder if the concept "rationality" is a reification of "reasoning", maybe an idealization of some benefit that can nonetheless have the unwanted effect of inducing nihilism when inadequately contemplated.

I wouldn't say the term is necessarily dualistic. I would say it is more saying that while something is not really a thing, it works well, in many situations to think of is as a thing, when in fact it is a batch of things and/or processes or is merely a facet of other things or processes. It is not necessarily claiming there is another substance but rather that its and as if that gets forgotten as an 'as if'