ellauri029.html on line 393: Planning fallacy
ellauri072.html on line 532: To some extent, his subject matter invites the ad or pro hominem fallacy. Wallace’s lonelies, wastoids and number crunchers are, often, trying to find ways to live well. One understandably slips from reading something concerned with how to be a good person to expecting the writer to have been more naturally kind himself. That thinking is perfectly wrong, though. Alec Baldwin surely has more to teach us than most about how to hold one’s temper; the co-founder of A.A., Bill W., is a guru of sobriety precisely because sobriety was so difficult for him.
ellauri089.html on line 423: § 10. "Good", then, denotes one unique simple object of thought among innumerable others; but this object has very commonly been identified with some other—a fallacy which may be called "the naturalistic fallacy" … Tässä Jyriltä alkaa lähteä riimu käsistä. Sillä on niin iso lehmälauma ojassa, ettei se pysty pitelemään sitä. 1 lehmistä on että ainoa merkizevä hyvä on termiittiapinoiden hyvä, lehmistä ei mitään väliä. Niitä on hyvä popsia aivan vapaasti. Koska lehmät ei ole meikäläisiä, niillä ei ole sielua, ei äänioikeutta eikä armeijaa, ja ne maistuu meistä apinoista hyvältä. So there!
ellauri089.html on line 427: § 12. The nature of this fallacy is easily recognised; …
ellauri089.html on line 431: § 14. The "naturalistic fallacy" illustrated by Bentham; and the importance of avoiding it pointed out. …
ellauri089.html on line 467: § 31. Mr Spencer's connection of Evolution with Ethics seems to shew the influence of the naturalistic fallacy; …
ellauri089.html on line 473: § 34. Three possible views as to the relation of Evolution to Ethics are distinguished from the naturalistic view to which it is proposed to confine the name "Evolutionistic Ethics". On any of these three views the relation would be unimportant, and the "Evolutionistic" view, which makes it important, involves a double fallacy. …
ellauri089.html on line 479: § 36. The prevalence of Hedonism is mainly due to the naturalistic fallacy. …
ellauri089.html on line 544: § 67. and by "metaphysical Ethics" I mean those systems which maintain or imply that the answer to the question "What is good?" logically depends upon the answer to the question "What is the nature of supersensible reality?" All such systems obviously involve the same fallacy—the "naturalistic fallacy"—by the use of which Naturalism was also defined. …
ellauri089.html on line 548: § 69. But the theory, by which I have defined Metaphysical Ethics, is not that Metaphysics has a logical bearing upon the question involved in practical Ethics "What effects will my action produce?", but that it has such a bearing upon the fundamental ethical question, "What is good in itself?" This theory has been refuted by the proof, in Chap. I, that the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy; it only remains to discuss certain confusions which seem to have lent it plausibility. …
ellauri097.html on line 451: On the principle the challenger is correct in describing the is-ought fallacy. But rather than working against the teleological argument, that principle works against a common argument in favor of homosexuality, which is, if homosexual interests are natural to someone, they are therefore morally acceptable. That is an example of an is-ought fallacy.
ellauri097.html on line 453: The is-ought fallacy, first articulated, by David Hume is put simply as you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.’ The more precise way of characterizing it is this; You cannot have a syllogism that has a moral term in the conclusion if there is no moral term in the premises. To be a valid argument, the conclusion has to follow from the premises. You can’t have anything in the conclusion that isn’t already set up in the premises. Hume identified this particular fallacy in arguments that were based on mere descriptive elements but had a conclusion with moral terms in it. That is the is-ought fallacy.
ellauri097.html on line 458: It seems like they’re just simply making a description: This is the way it is; therefore it is okay, in the moral sense of the word. They are presuming some moral state of affairs based on a mere description, and that’s an example of the is-ought fallacy.
ellauri097.html on line 459: If they want to work on repairing the flaw in their argument, they’re welcome to try that. It would involve introducing a moral term that can be substantiated into the premise to arrive at a conclusion with a moral term. They might say, “If a thing is natural, then it’s moral. This is natural for me, therefore it’s moral.” Now, there’s a valid argument. I don’t think it’s sound, but at least it doesn’t commit the is-ought fallacy.
ellauri097.html on line 465: With that as a foundation, let’s look at whether the teleological argument against homosexuality suffers from the is-ought fallacy.
ellauri097.html on line 483: It really is an issue of consistency of worldviews here, as you can see. But I think a more precise understanding of the teleological argument and the is-ought fallacy helps us to answer the original challenge the caller had.
ellauri159.html on line 1419: The world appears as a pluralism, 264. Elements of unity in the pluralism, 268. Hegel's excessive claims, 273. He makes of negation a bond of union, 273. The principle of totality, 277. Monism and pluralism, 279. The fallacy of accident in Hegel, 280. The good and the bad infinite, 284. Negation, 286. Conclusion, 292.—Note on the Anaesthetic revelation, 294.
ellauri392.html on line 101: intentional fallacy
ellauri392.html on line 103: affective fallacy
xxx/ellauri307.html on line 420: The above illustrates how a fallacy in reasoning can persist and maim the minds of believers for thousands of years. First we make ourselves more important than ants, second we attribute meaning to chance third we accept suffering caused by ignorance and malice as the will of a higher being.
20