Steelman
Appeal to nature
Also called “Natural means good” fallacy, appeal to naturalness.
Assuming something is good because it’s natural, or bad because it’s unnatural.
What it is
Arguing that something is good, healthy or right because it is “natural”, or bad because it is “artificial” or “unnatural”, without any further reason.
The pattern
X is natural. Therefore X is good. Or: Y is unnatural. Therefore Y is bad.
An example
“This herbal supplement is 100% natural, so it can’t have side effects.”
Many plant compounds are potent drugs, and some interact dangerously with medications. Being natural says nothing about being safe.
Why it fails
Plenty of natural things are harmful (arsenic, hemlock, disease) and plenty of unnatural ones are beneficial (glasses, vaccines, refrigeration). “Natural” is also vague: it can mean untouched by humans, traditional, typical or organic, so the word often smuggles in approval without an argument.
When it’s not a fallacy
Most lists skip this part. Calling a fair point a fallacy is a mistake too.
It can be fair when
- “Natural” is shorthand for a specific, relevant property backed by evidence, for example preferring whole foods because studies link them to better health, not because they are natural.
Try one
A question from the app. The wrong answers are its usual look-alikes.
Recording studio. Dee: “I played the producer both takes without saying which was which. He picked the programmed drums as the better groove, all three times.” Rui: “Drums are a person hitting things. The timing drifts a little, it breathes, and that’s what a groove is. A grid on a laptop can’t swing. We’re using the live take.” Dee: “Your call. It’s your record.”
What’s the flaw?
The blind test asked exactly which take grooves better, and the programmed one won every time. Rui rules it out because a machine made it, as if a human-played take must groove better whatever the ears say.
A fair reply
“He couldn’t tell which was which and picked the programmed one. Doesn’t that mean it swings?”
Often confused with
- Is–ought fallacy
The is–ought fallacy derives “ought” from “is” in general. Appeal to nature is the special case where the “is” is “this is natural”.
- Appeal to tradition
Appeal to tradition says “it’s always been done”. Appeal to nature says “it’s how nature does it”.
Where the name comes from
The name says what it does: it appeals to what’s natural as if that settles what’s good. The “natural means good” fallacy spells out that hidden step, and appeal to naturalness is another wording of the same idea. Nature comes from the Latin nasci, “to be born”, and how something came into the world doesn’t settle whether it’s good.
Not the same as G. E. Moore’s “naturalistic fallacy” (Principia Ethica, 1903), which is the claim that “good” can be defined in terms of natural properties such as pleasure, though the two are often confused.
Sources
- Appeal to nature, Wikipedia
- Naturalistic fallacy, Wikipedia
- Fallacies, Bradley Dowden, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
In the app
Practice spotting it on arguments that sound real.
Steelman has more examples of appeal to nature, how to answer it in a real conversation, and practice rounds that mix it with its look-alikes, so you learn the difference, not just the name. Coming soon to iPhone and Android.
You’re on the list.
We’ll email you the day Steelman is out.
Thanks for offering to test. We’ll write before the beta with how to join.