Leaderboard

Here's a haphazard way of approaching it. Ethics Explainer: Naturalistic Fallacy Main take-away: The naturalistic fallacy is an informal logical fallacy which argues that if something is ‘natural’ it must be good. It is closely related to the is/ought fallacy – when someone tries to infer what ‘ought’ to be done from what ‘is’. Naturalistic fallacy: (Wikipedia entry. Doesn't hone in on O.P.) Moral Non-Naturalism (Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) The naturalistic fallacy is very poorly named indeed (a point also made by Bernard Williams; see Williams 1985: 121–122). For not only is it not especially a problem for naturalists, it is also not really a fallacy even if Moore is right that it embodies a mistake of some kind. For it is highly uncharitable to charge anyone who advances the sorts of arguments to which Moore alludes as having committed a logical fallacy. Rather, charity demands that we interpret such arguments as enthymematic, and usually this is easy enough. New term (to me): enthymematic enthymematic, (Wikipedia entry) A syllogism consists of the following: Major Premise Minor Premise Conclusion entheymematic: a syllogism missing one of these three components. Naturalistic fallacy|ethics|Britannica Fallacy of treating the term “good” (or any equivalent term) as if it were the name of a natural property. . . . The gist, to me so far, is being "natural" is the good. There are problems introduced. Not cited, but contained in the links—from Ethics Explainer: The naturalistic fallacy looks like this: Breastfeeding is the natural way to feed children. Therefore, mothers ought to breastfeed their children and ought not to use baby formula (because it is unnatural). This is a fallacy. We act against nature all the time – with vaccinations, electricity, medicine – many of which are ethical. Lots of things that are natural are good, but not all unnatural things are unethical. This is what the naturalistic fallacy argues. One of the problems with this latter (since the . . . ) is the treatment of man-made grasps and their implementations as "acts against nature".

I believe Trump won the election, I doubt he lost any support among his 'base' and seemed to have garnered more support from parts of the electorate that voted against him in 2016. I believe there is a concerted effort between the establishment/deep state/media/big tech to remove Trump and install Biden. I think the pandemic provided 'them' opportunity to increase the level of chicanery in the way the election was carried out.

This needs a comment. I have never accepted the false, emotionalist, alternative which has dogged the Trump presidency. Why must I "like" him - or hate him? How about I approve of, in general and in essence, what he did and tried to do for the USA and for freedom lovers everywhere? Some time prior to Trump's arrival I became aware of some anti-American, anti-individualist nastiness stirring in the US. That he hated its proponents, with "malice", as was remarked, is simply justice to them. Personalities are irrelevant. It's not as if I want to take him home to meet the folks. That's a reminder of the infamous words by Journo: "As an expert in Ayn Rand's philosophy I can state that she would have detested Donald Trump". Wow. How shallow does he think Rand was, I ask? That she would assess the president on her feelings, aesthetic and otherwise, like he has done? Taken as a whole, her entire philosophy, her never to be equalled comprehensive grasp of reality and contexts, her often accuracy of a person's inner character, her admiration for America and its productivity, her insight into the American sense of life, her disgust with altruism and socialism, and ask yourself honestly, Elan: whom do you think Rand would have voted for?