Talk:Naturalistic fallacy
From Academic Kids
| This article is part of WikiProject Philosophy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
It's interesting to note that [1] (http://www.xrefer.com/entry/344393) is just completely false--that's a definition of the "is-ought fallacy," due to Hume, not the naturalistic fallacy. Of course, they're very closely related conceptually, but they aren't the same thing. --Larry Sanger
- It's alarming, actually. How could such a basic error crept into a (presumably) respectable reference book? --AV
- They evidently didn't have a wiki. :-) --LMS
i like the st. johns wort reference- a patch work peice of work
This page as-is seems fairly unclear to me, replete with unexplained/unlinked philosophical jargon and even latin terms. Is this complexity an unavoidable consequence of explaining a big concept in a way that's precise and accurate? Or could it be edited into simpler English without loss of value?
Fallacy of division
- Given that Moore's real targets are semantic reductionism (the position that the term 'good' may be defined with non-moral terms and concepts), and metaphysical reductionism (the position that the property goodness is identical to, or constituted by, non-moral properties), a better label for the alleged error might be "the reductionist fallacy".
It might be worth pointing out that Moore is potentially making the Fallacy of Division. For instance, a materialist argues that "yellow" (in the sense of qualia) arises from yellow light and the organisation of neurons in the individual's brain.
