See naturalistic fallacy in All languages combined, or Wiktionary
{
"etymology_text": "Introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.",
"forms": [
{
"form": "naturalistic fallacies",
"tags": [
"plural"
]
}
],
"head_templates": [
{
"args": {},
"expansion": "naturalistic fallacy (plural naturalistic fallacies)",
"name": "en-noun"
}
],
"lang": "English",
"lang_code": "en",
"pos": "noun",
"senses": [
{
"categories": [
{
"_dis": "50 50",
"kind": "other",
"name": "English entries with incorrect language header",
"parents": [
"Entries with incorrect language header",
"Entry maintenance"
],
"source": "w+disamb"
},
{
"_dis": "47 53",
"kind": "other",
"name": "Pages with 1 entry",
"parents": [],
"source": "w+disamb"
},
{
"_dis": "51 49",
"kind": "other",
"name": "Pages with entries",
"parents": [],
"source": "w+disamb"
},
{
"_dis": "51 49",
"kind": "topical",
"langcode": "en",
"name": "Logical fallacies",
"orig": "en:Logical fallacies",
"parents": [
"Logic",
"Rhetoric",
"Formal sciences",
"Philosophy",
"Language",
"Sciences",
"All topics",
"Communication",
"Fundamental"
],
"source": "w+disamb"
}
],
"examples": [
{
"ref": "1998 April, Edward O. Wilson, “The Biological Basis of Morality”, in The Atlantic:",
"text": "No, we do not have to put moral reasoning in a special category and use transcendental premises, because the posing of the naturalistic fallacy is itself a fallacy. For if ought is not is, what is?",
"type": "quote"
},
{
"ref": "2018, Shoshana Zuboff, chapter 11, in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism:",
"text": "It is easy to fall prey to the naturalistic fallacy, which suggests that because the companies are successful, they must also be right.",
"type": "quote"
}
],
"glosses": [
"The fallacious belief that something is automatically good because it is natural or automatically bad because it is unnatural."
],
"id": "en-naturalistic_fallacy-en-noun-m3mloy4b",
"links": [
[
"fallacious",
"fallacious"
],
[
"belief",
"belief"
],
[
"automatically",
"automatically"
],
[
"good",
"good"
],
[
"natural",
"natural"
],
[
"bad",
"bad"
],
[
"unnatural",
"unnatural"
]
],
"related": [
{
"_dis1": "72 28",
"word": "is-ought problem"
}
],
"synonyms": [
{
"word": "appeal to nature"
}
]
},
{
"categories": [
{
"_dis": "50 50",
"kind": "other",
"name": "English entries with incorrect language header",
"parents": [
"Entries with incorrect language header",
"Entry maintenance"
],
"source": "w+disamb"
},
{
"_dis": "47 53",
"kind": "other",
"name": "Pages with 1 entry",
"parents": [],
"source": "w+disamb"
},
{
"_dis": "51 49",
"kind": "other",
"name": "Pages with entries",
"parents": [],
"source": "w+disamb"
},
{
"_dis": "51 49",
"kind": "topical",
"langcode": "en",
"name": "Logical fallacies",
"orig": "en:Logical fallacies",
"parents": [
"Logic",
"Rhetoric",
"Formal sciences",
"Philosophy",
"Language",
"Sciences",
"All topics",
"Communication",
"Fundamental"
],
"source": "w+disamb"
}
],
"examples": [
{
"ref": "1903, G. E. Moore, Principia Ethica:",
"text": "Yet a mistake of this simple kind has commonly been made about good. It may be true that all things which are good are also something else, just as it is true that all things which are yellow produce a certain kind of vibration in the light. And it is a fact, that Ethics aims at discovering what are those other properties belonging to all things which are good. But far too many philosophers have thought that when they named those other properties they were actually defining good; that these properties, in fact, were simply not other, but absolutely and entirely the same with goodness. This view I propose to call the naturalistic fallacy and of it I shall now endeavour to dispose.",
"type": "quote"
}
],
"glosses": [
"Any attempt to define \"good\" verbally, instead of treating it as an undefined term, in terms of which other terms are defined."
],
"id": "en-naturalistic_fallacy-en-noun-OW5QHdFF",
"links": [
[
"attempt",
"attempt"
],
[
"define",
"define"
],
[
"good",
"good"
],
[
"verbally",
"verbally"
],
[
"treat",
"treat"
],
[
"undefined",
"undefined"
],
[
"term",
"term"
]
]
}
],
"wikipedia": [
"G. E. Moore",
"Principia Ethica",
"naturalistic fallacy"
],
"word": "naturalistic fallacy"
}
{
"categories": [
"English countable nouns",
"English entries with incorrect language header",
"English lemmas",
"English multiword terms",
"English nouns",
"Pages with 1 entry",
"Pages with entries",
"en:Logical fallacies"
],
"etymology_text": "Introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.",
"forms": [
{
"form": "naturalistic fallacies",
"tags": [
"plural"
]
}
],
"head_templates": [
{
"args": {},
"expansion": "naturalistic fallacy (plural naturalistic fallacies)",
"name": "en-noun"
}
],
"lang": "English",
"lang_code": "en",
"pos": "noun",
"related": [
{
"word": "is-ought problem"
}
],
"senses": [
{
"categories": [
"English terms with quotations"
],
"examples": [
{
"ref": "1998 April, Edward O. Wilson, “The Biological Basis of Morality”, in The Atlantic:",
"text": "No, we do not have to put moral reasoning in a special category and use transcendental premises, because the posing of the naturalistic fallacy is itself a fallacy. For if ought is not is, what is?",
"type": "quote"
},
{
"ref": "2018, Shoshana Zuboff, chapter 11, in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism:",
"text": "It is easy to fall prey to the naturalistic fallacy, which suggests that because the companies are successful, they must also be right.",
"type": "quote"
}
],
"glosses": [
"The fallacious belief that something is automatically good because it is natural or automatically bad because it is unnatural."
],
"links": [
[
"fallacious",
"fallacious"
],
[
"belief",
"belief"
],
[
"automatically",
"automatically"
],
[
"good",
"good"
],
[
"natural",
"natural"
],
[
"bad",
"bad"
],
[
"unnatural",
"unnatural"
]
],
"synonyms": [
{
"word": "appeal to nature"
}
]
},
{
"categories": [
"English terms with quotations"
],
"examples": [
{
"ref": "1903, G. E. Moore, Principia Ethica:",
"text": "Yet a mistake of this simple kind has commonly been made about good. It may be true that all things which are good are also something else, just as it is true that all things which are yellow produce a certain kind of vibration in the light. And it is a fact, that Ethics aims at discovering what are those other properties belonging to all things which are good. But far too many philosophers have thought that when they named those other properties they were actually defining good; that these properties, in fact, were simply not other, but absolutely and entirely the same with goodness. This view I propose to call the naturalistic fallacy and of it I shall now endeavour to dispose.",
"type": "quote"
}
],
"glosses": [
"Any attempt to define \"good\" verbally, instead of treating it as an undefined term, in terms of which other terms are defined."
],
"links": [
[
"attempt",
"attempt"
],
[
"define",
"define"
],
[
"good",
"good"
],
[
"verbally",
"verbally"
],
[
"treat",
"treat"
],
[
"undefined",
"undefined"
],
[
"term",
"term"
]
]
}
],
"wikipedia": [
"G. E. Moore",
"Principia Ethica",
"naturalistic fallacy"
],
"word": "naturalistic fallacy"
}
Download raw JSONL data for naturalistic fallacy meaning in English (2.8kB)
This page is a part of the kaikki.org machine-readable English dictionary. This dictionary is based on structured data extracted on 2024-11-06 from the enwiktionary dump dated 2024-10-02 using wiktextract (fbeafe8 and 7f03c9b). The data shown on this site has been post-processed and various details (e.g., extra categories) removed, some information disambiguated, and additional data merged from other sources. See the raw data download page for the unprocessed wiktextract data.
If you use this data in academic research, please cite Tatu Ylonen: Wiktextract: Wiktionary as Machine-Readable Structured Data, Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), pp. 1317-1325, Marseille, 20-25 June 2022. Linking to the relevant page(s) under https://kaikki.org would also be greatly appreciated.