Făkünamę wrote:Wrong. You're arguing that it is good becuz animals do it. It's nature, therefore good. Naturalistic fallacy dood.
I can't believe Rev and I are on the same page here. You misunderstand the argument. It's good because it's pro-survival of the organism, which is a requirement for life, propagation and evolution. Life is an innate "good thing" and so behaviors that protect, enhance and preserve life are likewise innately good, because as Rev says, without that innate morality of life being worthy of protection no living thing would exist.
That's why the right to life, the right to property, and the right to self defense are natural Organic Rights. They are innately good because without all of them the organism cannot survive, and the first imperative of life is that the organism survive at least long enough to reproduce.
The Organic Rights are those derived directly from natural behavior of living creatures as applied to mankind.
You're simply misquoting the "naturalistic fallacy" when what you're describing is actually a fallacious "appeal to nature."
General form of this type of argument:[5]
N is natural.
Therefore, N is good or right.
U is unnatural.
Therefore, U is bad or wrong.
An appeal to nature is considered to have committed a logical fallacy in stating that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural or artificial. This is a fallacy of relevance in that the natural origins of a phenomenon are not established as being relevant to their desirability. In this type of informal fallacy,[6] nature implies an ideal or desired state of being,[7] a state of how things were, or how they should be: in this sense an appeal to nature may resemble an appeal to tradition.
Skeptic Julian Baggini explains that "[E]ven if we can agree that some things are natural and some are not, what follows from this? The answer is: nothing. There is no factual reason to suppose that what is natural is good (or at least better) and what is unnatural is bad (or at least worse)."[8]
In some contexts, the use of the terms of "nature" and "natural" can be vague, leading to unintended associations with other concepts. The word "natural" can also be a loaded term — much like the word "normal", in some contexts, it can carry an implicit value judgement. An appeal to nature would thus beg the question, because the conclusion is entailed by the premise.[5]
Opinions differ regarding appeal to nature in rational argument. Sometimes, it can be taken as a rule of thumb that admits some exceptions, but nonetheless proves to be of use in one or more specific topics, (or in general). As a rule of thumb, natural or unnatural facts provide presumptively reliable good or bad values, barring evidence to the contrary. Failure to consider such evidence commits a fallacy of accident under this view.[5][9]
The flaw in your reasoning is the false claim that an Organic Right is a fallacy merely because it's an appeal to nature. It's not.
The argument goes like this:
P1 Life is better than no life
P2 Living organisms have developed defensive mechanisms and mechanisms for the acquisition and exclusive use of resources necessary for survival
C1 Therefore, defensive mechanisms and mechanisms for the acquisition and exclusive use of resources necessary for survival are innately good
This is not a naturalistic fallacy because it does not claim that the Organic Rights are "good" merely because they are "natural." It explicates WHY the Organic Rights are good, which is because life is better than no life.
Dood.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
