Define the naturalistic fallacy and present an example of it from recent discussion: could be from a book you’ve read, a political speech, a newspaper column, etc. Present your analysis and critique.
The naturalistic fallacy is defined as the inability to draw the conclusion of what is ethically obligated based on the premises. Another way to define this would be to say, "that the is does not imply ought because there is no ought in the premise." In a recent conversation with a friend, we were discussing the aftermath of a recent storm that ravaged our neighborhoods. As we spoke, I said that thankfully God had provided for us because all the damage that was done had been taken care of by the insurance company, a timely bonus at work, etc. He said that they were taken care of as well because "good things happen to good people." While I was not stating that God ought to provide for me because of the damage we faced, my friend did say that good things ought to happen to him because he is a good person. This unfortunately is an example of a naturalistic fallacy because the conclusion that good things should happen cannot be derived from the premise that he is a good person. In my view, God provides for his people because he promises to do so, not because he is obligated to by anything more than his word. In my friend's view, there is an expectation of provision that ought to come from his view that he is a good person. As much as I desire for good things to happen to us both, I realize that they don't happen because we are good people, but because God wills the rain and the sunshine to fall upon the righteous and the unrighteous alike.
