Naturalistic Fallacy

This is where a person jumps from saying that because something is a certain way, that something else ought to be. It's a non-sequitur.

This is called the is-ought problem.

Making prescriptive statements from observations (descriptive statements) is a tricky problem that is often done badly.

Examples

In each case, no reason is given to justify the ought.

Eugenics (German-style)

Some people are inferior, therefore they ought to be killed or put in Typhus-infested labor camps.

Eugenics (California-style)

Some people are stupid, therefore they ought to be forcefully sterilized.

Totalitarian example

Free thinking and criticism are a threat to the state's despotic ruling class, therefore we ought to prevent free speech and put dissenters in jail.

Canadian body shop example

We towed your car after your accident into our locked back lot without your permission, therefore you ought to pay us a storage fee of $300 per day.

Scapegoating example

Teenagers are inherently wild and out of control, therefore we ought to blame them when anything goes wrong (caused by adults).

Islamic example

People see that Islam is oppressive and they leave it, therefore believers ought to kill them for apostacy.

Mexican example

You've legally parked in an off-street spot, but you're a gringo so you ought to have your car impounded and then pay a fine.

Weaknesses

The solution to unjustified oughts is always to ask why.

You need to point out that the ought is not justified by the is, and ask that the arguer justify the ought.

If the ought is presented for good, protective or altruistic reasons, as when a parent tells a child she is always looking tired and ought to give up junk food and get some exercise, then the relationship from is to ought may be implicit but perfectly reasonable.

However if the ought is insisted upon by one person or group A trying to assert illegitimate dominance over others, you may observe that person or group A either:

1. Gets flustered or angry that you are asking why, even though you have every right to do so, because they don't want to answer.
2. Uses deception to avoid answering the why question e.g.
• Claiming there is a beneficial reason, using phoney arguments and buttering you up.
• Playing the blame game to guilt-trip you into accepting the ought.

In the face of a con-man situation, e.g. a towing and body shop that says you ought to pay unjustified vehicle storage fees after they absconded with your car, you will have to ask authorities to step in (police, courts) to break the con-man's will.