Moralistic fallacy

Last updated

The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that an aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then Z would happen! Thus, X is false", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing. What should be moral is assumed a priori to also be naturally occurring. The moralistic fallacy is sometimes presented as the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy. However, it could be seen as a variation of the very same naturalistic fallacy; the difference between them could be considered pragmatical, depending on the intentions of the person who uses it: naturalistic fallacy if the user wants to justify existing social practices with the argument that they are natural; moralistic fallacy if the user wants to combat existing social practices with the argument of denying that they are natural.

Contents

Examples

Steven Pinker writes that "[t]he naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found in nature is good. It was the basis for social Darwinism, the belief that helping the poor and sick would get in the way of evolution, which depends on the survival of the fittest. Today, biologists denounce the naturalistic fallacy because they want to describe the natural world honestly, without people deriving morals about how we ought to behave (as in: If birds and beasts engage in adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, it must be OK)." Pinker goes on to explain that "[t]he moralistic fallacy is that what is good is found in nature. It lies behind the bad science in nature-documentary voiceovers: lions are mercy-killers of the weak and sick, mice feel no pain when cats eat them, dung beetles recycle dung to benefit the ecosystem and so on. It also lies behind the romantic belief that humans cannot harbor desires to kill, rape, lie, or steal because that would be too depressing or reactionary." [1]

Moralistic fallacy

Naturalistic fallacy

Effects on science and society

Sometimes basic scientific findings or interpretations are rejected, or their discovery, development or acknowledgement is opposed or restricted, through assertions of potential misuse or harmfulness.

In the late 1970s, Bernard Davis, in response to growing political and public calls to restrict basic research (versus applied research), amid criticisms of dangerous knowledge (versus dangerous applications), applied the term moralistic fallacy toward its present use. [2]

(The term was used as early as 1957 to at least some if differing import. [3] )

In natural science, the moralistic fallacy can result in rejection or suppression of basic science, whose goal is understanding the natural world, on account of its potential misuse in applied science, whose goal is the development of technology or technique. [4] This blurs scientific assessment, discussed in natural sciences (like physics or biology), versus significance assessment, weighed in social sciences (like social psychology, sociology, and political science), or in behavioral sciences (like psychology).

Davis asserted that in basic science, the descriptive, explanatory, and thus predictive ability of information is primary, not its origin or its applications, since knowledge cannot be ensured against misuse, and misuse cannot falsify knowledge. Both misuse of scientific work and suppression of scientific knowledge can have undesired or even undesirable effects. In the early 20th century, the development of quantum physics made possible the atomic bomb in the mid 20th century. Without quantum physics, however, much of the technology of communications and imaging might have been impossible.

Scientific theories with abundant research support can be discarded in public debates, where general agreement is central but can be utterly false. [5] The obligation of basic scientists to inform the public, however, can be stymied by contrasting claims from others both rousing alarm and touting assurances of protecting the public. [6] Davis had indicated that greater and clearer familiarization with the uses and limitations of science can more effectively prevent knowledge misuse or harm. [7]

Natural science can help humans understand the natural world, but according to Bernard Davis, it cannot make policy, moral, or behavioral decisions. [7] Davis considers questions involving values — what people should do - to be more effectively addressed through discourse in social sciences, not by restriction of basic science. [7] Misunderstanding of the potential of science, and misplaced expectations, have resulted in moral and decision-making impediments, but suppressing science is unlikely to resolve these dilemmas. [7]

Seville Statement on Violence

The Seville Statement on Violence was adopted, in Seville, Spain, on 16 May 1986, by an international meeting of scientists convened by the Spanish National Commission for UNESCO. UNESCO adopted the statement, on 16 November 1989, at the twenty-fifth session of its General Conference. The statement purported to refute "the notion that organized human violence is biologically determined". [8] [ page needed ]

Some, including Steven Pinker, [9] have criticized the Seville Statement as an example of the moralistic fallacy. Research in the areas of evolutionary psychology and neuropsychology suggest that human violence has biological roots. [10] [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

In philosophical ethics, the naturalistic fallacy is the claim that it is possible to define good in terms of natural entities, or properties such as pleasant or desirable. The term was introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.

Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. Modern science is typically divided into three major branches: the natural sciences, which study the physical world; the social sciences, which study individuals and societies; and the formal sciences, which study formal systems, governed by axioms and rules. There is disagreement whether the formal sciences are science disciplines, because they do not rely on empirical evidence. Applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as in engineering and medicine.

Sociobiology is a field of biology that aims to examine and explain social behavior in terms of evolution. It draws from disciplines including psychology, ethology, anthropology, evolution, zoology, archaeology, and population genetics. Within the study of human societies, sociobiology is closely allied to evolutionary anthropology, human behavioral ecology, evolutionary psychology, and sociology.

<i>The Mismeasure of Man</i> 1981 book by Stephen Jay Gould

The Mismeasure of Man is a 1981 book by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. The book is both a history and critique of the statistical methods and cultural motivations underlying biological determinism, the belief that "the social and economic differences between human groups—primarily races, classes, and sexes—arise from inherited, inborn distinctions and that society, in this sense, is an accurate reflection of biology".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Steven Pinker</span> Canadian-American psycholinguist (born 1954)

Steven Arthur Pinker is a Canadian-American cognitive psychologist, psycholinguist, popular science author, and public intellectual. He is an advocate of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind.

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Is–ought problem</span> Philosophical problem articulated by David Hume

The is–ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between positive statements and prescriptive or normative statements, and that it is not obvious how one can coherently transition from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. Hume's law or Hume's guillotine is the thesis that an ethical or judgmental conclusion cannot be inferred from purely descriptive factual statements.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sociobiological theories of rape</span> Theories about how evolutionary adaptation influences the psychology of rapists

Sociobiological theories of rape explore how evolutionary adaptation influences the psychology of rapists. Such theories are highly controversial, as traditional theories typically do not consider rape a behavioral adaptation. Some object to such theories on ethical, religious, political, or scientific grounds. Others argue correct knowledge of rape causes is necessary for effective preventive measures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social responsibility</span> Ethical framework

Social responsibility is an ethical framework in which a person works and cooperates with other people and organizations for the benefit of the community.

The fact–value distinction is a fundamental epistemological distinction described between:

  1. Statements of fact, based upon reason and physical observation, and which are examined via the empirical method.
  2. Statements of value, which encompass ethics and aesthetics, and are studied via axiology.

Evolutionary ethics is a field of inquiry that explores how evolutionary theory might bear on our understanding of ethics or morality. The range of issues investigated by evolutionary ethics is quite broad. Supporters of evolutionary ethics have claimed that it has important implications in the fields of descriptive ethics, normative ethics, and metaethics.

Bernard David Davis was an American biologist who made major contributions in microbial physiology and metabolism. Davis was a prominent figure at Harvard Medical School in microbiology and in national science policy. He was the 1989 recipient of the Selman A. Waksman Award in Microbiology from the National Academy of Sciences.

An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'". It is generally considered to be a bad argument because the implicit (unstated) primary premise "What is natural is good" is typically irrelevant, having no cogent meaning in practice, or is an opinion instead of a fact.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Spandrel (biology)</span> Evolutionary byproduct of some other characteristic

In evolutionary biology, a spandrel is a phenotypic trait that is a byproduct of the evolution of some other characteristic, rather than a direct product of adaptive selection. Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin brought the term into biology in their 1979 paper "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme". Adaptationism is a point of view that sees most organismal traits as adaptive products of natural selection. Gould and Lewontin sought to temper what they saw as adaptationist bias by promoting a more structuralist view of evolution.

The Seville Statement on Violence is a statement on violence that was adopted by an international meeting of scientists, convened by the Spanish National Commission for UNESCO, in Seville, Spain, on 16 May 1986. It was subsequently adopted by UNESCO at the twenty-fifth session of the General Conference on 16 November 1989. The statement, then known as a 'Statement on Violence', was designed to refute "the notion that organized human violence is biologically determined".

Evolutionary psychology seeks to identify and understand human psychological traits that have evolved in much the same way as biological traits, through adaptation to environmental cues. Furthermore, it tends toward viewing the vast majority of psychological traits, certainly the most important ones, as the result of past adaptions, which has generated significant controversy and criticism from competing fields. These criticisms include disputes about the testability of evolutionary hypotheses, cognitive assumptions such as massive modularity, vagueness stemming from assumptions about the environment that leads to evolutionary adaptation, the importance of non-genetic and non-adaptive explanations, as well as political and ethical issues in the field itself.

<i>A Natural History of Rape</i> 2000 book by Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer

A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion is a 2000 book by the biologist Randy Thornhill and the anthropologist Craig T. Palmer, in which the authors argue that evolutionary psychology can account for rape among human beings, maintain that rape is either a behavioral adaptation or a byproduct of adaptive traits such as sexual desire and aggressiveness, and make proposals for preventing rape. They also criticize the assumption that there is a connection between what is naturally selected and what is morally right or wrong, which they refer to as the "naturalistic fallacy", and the idea, popularized by the feminist author Susan Brownmiller in Against Our Will (1975), that rape is an expression of male domination and is not sexually motivated.

The science of morality may refer to various forms of ethical naturalism grounding morality in rational, empirical consideration of the natural world. It is sometimes framed as using the scientific approach to determine what is right and wrong, in contrast to the widespread belief that "science has nothing to say on the subject of human values".

Basic research, also called pure research, fundamental research, basic science, or pure science, is a type of scientific research with the aim of improving scientific theories for better understanding and prediction of natural or other phenomena. In contrast, applied research uses scientific theories to develop technology or techniques which can be used to intervene and alter natural or other phenomena. Though often driven simply by curiosity, basic research often fuels the technological innovations of applied science. The two aims are often practiced simultaneously in coordinated research and development.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Naturalism (philosophy)</span> Belief that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe

In philosophy, naturalism is the idea that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe. In its primary sense it is also known as ontological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, pure naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism. "Ontological" refers to ontology, the philosophical study of what exists. Philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism.

References

  1. ↑ Sailer, Steve (October 30, 2002). "Q&A: Steven Pinker of 'Blank Slate'". UPI . Archived from the original on December 5, 2015. Retrieved December 5, 2015.
  2. ↑ Davis BD (1978). "The moralistic fallacy". Nature. 272 (5652): 390. doi: 10.1038/272390a0 . PMID   11643452.
  3. ↑ Moore EC (1957). "The Moralistic Fallacy". The Journal of Philosophy. 54 (2): 29–42. doi:10.2307/2022356. JSTOR   2022356.
  4. ↑ Davis BD (2000). "The scientist's world". Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 64 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1128/MMBR.64.1.1-12.2000. PMC   98983 . PMID   10704471.
  5. ↑ Kreutzberg GW (2005). "Scientists and the marketplace of opinions". EMBO Rep. 6 (5): 393–96. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400405. PMC   1299311 . PMID   15864285.
  6. ↑ Davis BD (2000), section "Technology".
  7. 1 2 3 4 Davis BD (2000), section "Limited scope of science".
  8. ↑ Suter, Keith (2005). 50 Things You Want to Know About World Issues... But Were Too Afraid to Ask. Milson's Point, NSW, Australia: Transworld Publishers. ISBN   978-1-86325-503-5.
  9. ↑ Pinker, Steven. How the Mind Works. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997, pp. 44, 49.
  10. ↑ Jones D (2008). "Human behaviour: Killer instincts". Nature. 451 (7178): 512–15. doi: 10.1038/451512a . PMID   18235473.
  11. ↑ May ME & Kennedy CH (2009). "Aggression as positive reinforcement in mice under various ratio- and time-based reinforcement schedules". Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 91 (2): 185–96. doi:10.1901/jeab.2009.91-185. PMC   2648522 . PMID   19794833.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.