Testeverything521 | Understanding the Naturalistic Fallacy @Testeverything521 | Uploaded 10 years ago | Updated 1 hour ago
What is the naturalistic fallacy? Watch the video to find out!
G.E. Moore's explanation of the naturalistic fallacy:
"That "pleased" does not mean "having the sensation of red", or anything else whatever, does not prevent us from understanding what it does mean. It is enough for us to know that "pleased" does mean "having the sensation of pleasure", and though pleasure is absolutely indefinable, though pleasure is pleasure and nothing else whatever, yet we feel no difficulty in saying that we are pleased. The reason is, of course, that when I say "I am pleased", I do not mean that "I" am the same thing as "having pleasure". And similarly no difficulty need be found in my saying that "pleasure is good" and yet not meaning that "pleasure" is the same thing as "good", that pleasure means good, and that good means pleasure. If I were to imagine that when I said "I am pleased", I meant that I was exactly the same thing as "pleased", I should not indeed call that a naturalistic fallacy, although it would be the same fallacy as I have called naturalistic with reference to Ethics."
That can be found in his book titled "Principia Ethica" on page 9.
In this video I hope to give a simple overview of the naturalistic fallacy and what Moore hopes it will prove.
What is the naturalistic fallacy? Watch the video to find out!
G.E. Moore's explanation of the naturalistic fallacy:
"That "pleased" does not mean "having the sensation of red", or anything else whatever, does not prevent us from understanding what it does mean. It is enough for us to know that "pleased" does mean "having the sensation of pleasure", and though pleasure is absolutely indefinable, though pleasure is pleasure and nothing else whatever, yet we feel no difficulty in saying that we are pleased. The reason is, of course, that when I say "I am pleased", I do not mean that "I" am the same thing as "having pleasure". And similarly no difficulty need be found in my saying that "pleasure is good" and yet not meaning that "pleasure" is the same thing as "good", that pleasure means good, and that good means pleasure. If I were to imagine that when I said "I am pleased", I meant that I was exactly the same thing as "pleased", I should not indeed call that a naturalistic fallacy, although it would be the same fallacy as I have called naturalistic with reference to Ethics."
That can be found in his book titled "Principia Ethica" on page 9.
In this video I hope to give a simple overview of the naturalistic fallacy and what Moore hopes it will prove.
