LZeroboros
LZeroboros t1_ivfe15d wrote
Reply to comment by bestest_name_ever in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3
I'd say it's more an is-ought-fallacy, rather than a naturalistic fallacy.
LZeroboros t1_ivflk12 wrote
Reply to comment by bestest_name_ever in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3
No, there is a difference. In an is-ought fallacy, the first normative premise is missing, whereas in a naturalistic fallacy, this premise is present but has been transformed into a definition.