1. The naturalistic fallacy is the leap from what is to what ought to
be - that is, the tendency to believe that what is natural is good;
that what is, ought to be.

2. The moralistic fallacy refers to the leap from ought to be to what
is; the claim that the way things should be is the way they are. This
is the tendency to believe that what is good is natural; that what
ought to be, is.

-----------------------------

In any discussion of evolutionary psychology, it is very important to
avoid two serious mistakes in thinking. They are called the
naturalistic fallacy and the moralistic fallacy. The naturalistic
fallacy, which was coined by the English philosopher George Edward
Moore in the early twentieth century though first identified much
earlier by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, is the leap from what
is to ought-that is, the tendency to believe that what is natural is
good; that what is, ought to be. For example, one might commit the
error of the naturalistic fallacy and say, "Because people are
genetically different and endowed with different innate abilities and
talents, they ought to be treated differently."

RED FLAG: Science mixed in with Politics!! Switch on The Auto-contrary
Drive, Scotty.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:27:12 -0700, Immortalist wrote:

Here is another error that this 'we' must avoid: the 'natural' bottom
line here or the natural active agent is not in the need to 'treat'
people. Rather, given genetic differences people will act differently,
treated or not treated. After this is recognized then the question
becomes: if people act differently should they then be treated
differently?

'Endowed' and 'innate' are loaded and ambiguous terms. Are they being
used here to force some other issue (eg Endowed by a creator)?

Fallicy? Have you got one?

Immortalist wrote:

I reject this whole line of thinking out of hand. Modern economics shows us
how time and again, the major flaw in social experiments through history
have been the 'meddling' by humans of 'naturally...