# Ethics for Animals > ## Preface ## 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](https://wiki.g15e.com/en/pages/Naturalistic%20fallacy.txt): > Attempts to derive norms from facts are very common. Even [utilitarianism](https://wiki.g15e.com/en/pages/Utilitarianism.txt), 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 or , 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. ## Chapter 5. Vegetarianism, environmentalism, feminism ## Conclusion. Our duties toward animals