Naturalistic Fallacy

Philosophers have widely examined the concept of ethics. Some prominent philosophers such as Jim Rachels, Aristotle, Moore, and Spencer among others provided a foundation to modern day ethics or rather ethical judgment. Apparently, ethical issues emanate from the conflict between alleged naturalistic and scientific nature of variables, issues, and ideas among others. The arguments surrounding the concept of ethics tend to depict this concept as fundamentally unscientific. According to Sober (209), naturalistic fallacy refers to the false idea that people develop when dealing with ought and is premises while trying to understand particular phenomena. Moore G.E, the first philosopher who invented the concept of natural philosophy by developing and sharing a false idea positing that naturally existing behaviors are right thus should be accepted by human beings. As illustrated by Greene (847) natural fallacy, according to Moore is an anecdotal gaffe of identifying natural behavior with right or good things. Natural fallacy influence how we things because we tend to alter or
According to Peter Singer, ordinary intuitions allude to the commonly held moral convictions about something and might be true or false. Common intuitions thus apply across the board and are accepted by a large group who support a belief if they belief is or reject one that they are against. An example of a common intuition as illustrated by Singer is the notion that killing worse compared to letting someone die naturally. On the other hand, rational intuitions according to Singer are the neutral, objective view of a situation rather than seeing it from the accidental incidents that evolved from the past. For instance, it is considered a rational intuition if the death of anyone is tragic (Singer 351). Rational intuitions here do not consider the moral aspect of a given tragic