Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Naturalistic fallacy: is described as the error to infer from being to what should be. From the fact that something is the way it is, cannot be concluded that it should be like this. The expression comes from the Principia Ethica by G. E. Moore (1903), but the problem goes much further back and has already been pre-formulated by G. Hume in his “A Treatise of Human Nature” (1738-40). Another name for the problem is the is-ought problem._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Max Black on Naturalistic Fallacy - Dictionary of Arguments
III 81 Naturalistic fallacy/BlackVsHume: there are quite sentences with "should", which can have a trith value - then there is no logical separation of scientific and moral principles. (Original place: D. Hume, Treatise of human Nature, book 3, part I sec. 1) Black: the argument is deceptively simple: Hume/Black: all moralists make an imperceptible transition from observations of human affairs (or assertions about the existence of God) expressed with "is" and "is not" to normative conclusions with "should" or "should not". But this transition does not follow at all ("is of the least consequence"). We need a reason why this new relation (which seems unthinkable) could occur as a deduction from others. Deduction/Hume/naturalistic fallacy/Black: the core of the argument is that nothing can follow in a deduction that is not already contained in the premises. Naturalistic fallacy/BlackVsHume: but there is a way in which new evaluative or normative material can appear in a valid conclusion: For example, premise: you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. (This can be regarded as factual) But it follows now: Conclusion: if you want to make an omelette, eggs should be broken. Hume/Black: what he means is that no categorical or unconditional "should" follows. BlackVsHume: this seems convincing at first sight. But: Problem: the absence of the word "should" is not a reliable criterion. For example, the conclusion that murder is a sin implies that one should not kill. But how can we judge from the mere linguistic form that the premise is not normative. One could say that the sentence about murder is unverifiable. III 81 Behind this are difficult questions of how we should understand the goals and procedures of science. >Science/Black._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Black I Max Black "Meaning and Intention: An Examination of Grice’s Views", New Literary History 4, (1972-1973), pp. 257-279 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, G. Meggle (Hg), Frankfurt/M 1979 Black II M. Black The Labyrinth of Language, New York/London 1978 German Edition: Sprache. Eine Einführung in die Linguistik München 1973 Black III M. Black The Prevalence of Humbug Ithaca/London 1983 Black IV Max Black "The Semantic Definition of Truth", Analysis 8 (1948) pp. 49-63 In Truth and Meaning, Paul Horwich, Aldershot 1994 |
||
> Counter arguments against Black
> Counter arguments in relation to Naturalistic Fallacy
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-25