Difference between revisions of "Appeal to nature"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Overview: more wit' da clever witty stuff) |
m (→Overview: aka naturalistic fallacy) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[Category:logical fallacies]]An [[appeal to nature]] is a [[claim]] that something is [[good]] or right because it is "natural", or that something is [[bad]] or wrong because it is unnatural. | [[Category:logical fallacies]]An [[appeal to nature]] is a [[claim]] that something is [[good]] or right because it is "natural", or that something is [[bad]] or wrong because it is unnatural. | ||
| − | This equation is generally regarded as a [[fallacy]] for the following reasons: | + | This equation is generally regarded as a [[fallacy]] (it is also known as the "naturalistic fallacy") for the following reasons: |
* Most of [[civilization]] is inherently "unnatural", e.g. wearing clothes. | * Most of [[civilization]] is inherently "unnatural", e.g. wearing clothes. | ||
** Any argument based on the assumption that "unnatural" means "bad" therefore must grant that wearing clothing is wrong. | ** Any argument based on the assumption that "unnatural" means "bad" therefore must grant that wearing clothing is wrong. | ||
Revision as of 18:20, 24 October 2008
Overview
An appeal to nature is a claim that something is good or right because it is "natural", or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural.
This equation is generally regarded as a fallacy (it is also known as the "naturalistic fallacy") for the following reasons:
- Most of civilization is inherently "unnatural", e.g. wearing clothes.
- Any argument based on the assumption that "unnatural" means "bad" therefore must grant that wearing clothing is wrong.
- Any discussion in which this argument is used is maligning the framework of civil discourse in which the discussion is taking place; hitting the other person over the head with a rock is therefore an appropriate rebuttal, since it is an entirely natural response.
- The large number of obvious counterexamples. You wouldn't, say, defend a shark's right to attack swimmers (much less a vicious dog's right to maim children) just because that was its natural tendency, or make laws requiring that people behave more like chimpanzees.
Validity
As with many fallacies, there is a grain of validity to it – in this case, the fact that if something is done in nature, it may be somehow vital to survival, otherwise known as the argument from survival.