Subject: 
        [evol-psych] The naturalistic fallacy is itself naturalistic
   Date: 
        Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:29:21 -0600
   From: 
        "Laurenson, Edwin C." 
     To: 
        [email protected]




The problem with denying the existence of the naturalistic fallacy is that
it is a naturalistic fact that people disagree about what should be done in
multitudes of situations, both within and across cultures.  This is true
both with regard to issues of personal morality -- how a particular person,
or particular persons, should be treated in particular circumstances -- and
with regard to issues of public policy large and small.  The fact that it
isn't true with regard to all moral matters is of great interest and worthy
of deep study, but ultimately  beside the point if what one is asserting is
that the nf simply doesn't exist.

Yes, many disagreements can be resolved by close and fair-minded attention
to the facts as they can best be established by diligent investigation.
Yes, within a particular cultural context and tradition there can
periodically be said to a "right" answer (so long as the underlying premises
are taken as "givens").  Yes, there are commonalities in the way people
behave and how they feel and think across cultural contexts that can be
drawn upon to support judgments in a variety of circumstances that some ways
of treating people "work better" than others and will give rise to stronger
more effective societies and greater flourishing and health and happiness
among the members of those societies, on the average, than others.

But even within a particular generally accepted approach to organizing a
society -- e.g., liberal capitalism with at least some welfare state
components -- there will be disagreements on social policy and the
allocation of resources and many other matters concerning which people
operating with the best available information and with a good will to reach
agreement will not be able to agree, perhaps most accurately attributed to
inescapable differences in temperament.  Even within highly developed and
phenomenally sophisticated legal systems, inescapable issues arise as to
what is the "right" answer applying "already established" rules (in quotes
because what those rules "are" is itself subject to constant examination and
reformulation).

The best that can be done in issues of public policy -- which are by any
proper standard moral issues -- is to establish effective mechanisms for
resolving those disagreements, with the understanding, however, that any
particular resolution will have its critics who will in good faith weigh its
advantages and disadvantages differently.  And this is even more true when
treating issues such as how to deal with other animals and other features of
the natural environment.  Furthermore, since we are at the theoretical
threshold of being able to change the characteristics of human beings
themselves, arguably we can no longer rely on how human beings "naturally"
think and feel to inform us as to what to do in the future. 

With respect to all of these matters, the best one can do personally is
cultivate wisdom and study how to apply it.

Or at least this is how it seems to me.  Perhaps those who think the
naturalistic fallacy does not exist have a different idea of what it
entails.  Perhaps my views are affected by my practice as a lawyer.  But
again, I believe these are observations of natural fact, not affected by
reasoning of the kind set forth in the postings by Messrs. Arnhart and
Roberts.

Regards

Ted Laurenson

Edwin C. Laurenson
Baker & McKenzie
805 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Phone: (212) 891-3554
Fax:     (212) 759-9133
email:   [email protected]