Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Then we have the naturalistic fallacy, which is a form of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy infers "ought" from "is". So "there exists a state of affairs such that x" becomes "there should be a state of affairs such that x". This is obviously gibberish because the state of affairs such that x could be the existence of slavery or the criminalisation of homosexuality, or anything you'd like to propose as "not a good thing".
|
According to
wikipedia (hoho) you have 'misunderstood' both Hume and Moore, and missed the 'deep' consequences that the is-ought problem poses.
Frankly, I think the is-ought problem only serves to highlight how boring and meaningless philisophical meandering becomes.