Q&A: The Naturalistic Fallacy
The Naturalistic Fallacy
Question
The naturalistic fallacy is a famous fallacy, and much ink has already been spilled over it.
I just wanted to sharpen the point: in light of your epistemological conception of the synthetic (and not only the analytic-thinking), is the fallacy still really entirely intact, unchanged in the slightest? Are values not derived as a result of a factual reality?
Perhaps it would be more accurate to formulate it this way: when there is a factual reality before us, some moral idea also rests upon it, and as a result the moral judgment is derived. Have I understood your approach correctly?
Thanks for everything!
Answer
Yes, but the norm still does not arise from the physical fact in itself, but from the observation of the moral idea. True, that too is a kind of fact, but it is an ethical fact, and with regard to facts of that kind there is no naturalistic fallacy.
Okay, that’s what I thought. Thanks