Ethics for Animals
- Author
- 최훈
- Published
Preface
Chapter 1. The moral status of animals
Chapter 2. Arguments against speciesism
Chapter 3. Animal suffering
Chapter 4. The reality of speciesism
Avoiding the naturalistic fallacy:
Attempts to derive norms from facts are very common. Even utilitarianism, which seeks moral right and wrong in what promotes pleasure or pain, does not escape the naturalistic fallacy. … Whatever conclusion we reach about the moral status of animals, the moment we use the theory of evolution or neuroscience, we commit the naturalistic fallacy.
Choi Hoon’s claim above rests on a mistaken understanding of the naturalistic fallacy. Deriving a value statement from premises that include factual statements is not, in itself, fallacious. The naturalistic fallacy is deriving a value statement when the premises contain only factual statements.
For utilitarianism to be fallacious in the way Choi Hoon claims, its argument would have to be as follows:
- Premise: An individual has an interest in pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain.
- Conclusion: That individual’s interests should receive equal consideration.
This argument is fallacious because its conclusion, a value statement, is derived from premises containing only factual statements. But the actual utilitarian argument is as follows:
- Premise 1: An individual has an interest in pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain.
- Premise 2: If an individual has interests, they should receive equal consideration.
- Conclusion: The interests of individuals capable of experiencing pleasure and pain should receive equal consideration.
In this argument, premise 1 is a factual statement (“is”), but premise 2 is a value statement (“ought”). Since the value statement in the conclusion is not derived “solely from factual statements,” this is not a naturalistic fallacy.