Q&A: The Naturalistic Fallacy
The Naturalistic Fallacy
Question
Have a good week!
First of all, thank you very much for the responsa and in general for the articles.
According to the fallacy, it follows that we cannot derive values and norms from facts, or as the Rabbi defined it, “judgment from facts.” For example: it is impossible to obligate people to be moral even if we have defined what morality is. So my question is: if so, from what can obligations be derived? After all, even if God commanded us, that is still a fact—so what would make us observe it as a norm?
Answer
One must posit an additional bridge principle that connects the values to the facts. For example: whatever God commands should be observed.
Discussion on Answer
From an educational standpoint, one should instruct that people are obligated to observe. But that is not the truth.
God reveals the possibilities, and the person chooses.
But in any case Rabbi Michi has a problem here, because he argues that nothing can be learned from the Torah that God gave.
And from this it follows that when the Rabbi speaks about an obligation to observe the word of God, it is an obligation devoid of content. After all, nothing practical can be learned from the words of God.
You can do whatever you want. The question is whether, in your view, it is actually correct. Without God, I do not see a plausible bridge principle that can ground morality.
Your claim is similar to the claim that if every argument is based on foundational assumptions (which is of course true), then every foundational assumption is just as acceptable as its opposite.
If the Rabbi says that one has to add another bridge, then we can do that even without God. In other words: if Hume’s claim is that there is no possibility at all of commanding what is proper for a person, then God cannot do that either; and if it is possible to impose a norm on a person, then we can do that even without God.