Appealing to Nature Fallacy in 6 minutes 

That's not correct though? For appeal to nature-like arguments to be valid, it must be the case that the conclusion _always_ follow from the premises if the premises are true. Referring back to the video: P1: X is natural Conclusion: X is good (prudentially or morally good) If P1 is true, it must _always_ follow that the conclusion is true. Hence, to show that this form of argument is invalid, _all it takes_ is a single example in which P1 is true and the Conclusion is false. Thus, the example you have given doesn't actually show that appealing to nature is valid reasoning. All you've shown is that in specific cases that are directly due to human evolution, there are some prudential limitations on the kinds of actions we can take. Due to the way we have evolved we can't breath underwater like fish, so it would be prudentially good not to try breathing underwater like fish or we will die or be harmed. Due to the way we have evolved, it would be prudentially good not to eat the same kinds of food as a cow, otherwise this could lead to harm like malnourishment. Appealing to nature in these kinds of cases only works because the reason for taking the prudentially good course of action itself directly has to do with human nature.

By that logic, social Darwinism ought to be where our morality comes from because that is seen in nature.

​@@morgoth5460 I can't argue with your logical conclusion. My concern is that the phrase " Appeal to nature fallacy " is being misused I public( internet ) discourse. Prudential.measures to protect human health like industry regulation are being rejected as an 'appeal to nature ' without determining if they are or not. I am fighting to defend organic food production from this. Farming and food shopping are practical actions and not eally philosophical. Yet any attempt to explain the reasoning or tradition of alternative food is met with a quick dismissal. Even concerns about animal health or workers rights are being rejected as if philosophy doesn't allow for a low tech low additive solution. How am I supposed to counter this in the real world? Any advice would be gratefully relieved.

There are a whole host of arguments that appeal to nature that I'm not sure about. For example, someone says "Eating meat is natural. Therefore, it is good." On the surface, this looks like an appealing to nature fallacy since it looks like they are assuming that anything we've naturally done in the past is morally permissible. But, there is so much unclarity in this argument. For example, what do they mean by "natural" and what do they mean by "good"? For example, suppose they say that this is what their REAL argument is: "(1) Because human beings have eaten meat over time, their bodies have evolved to depend upon nutrients that are readily found in meat. (2) Therefore, eating meat is prudentially good for you." In this case, we might say that the argument doesn't commit the appeal to nature fallacy. This doesn't necessarily mean the argument is good. For example premise (1) might be false (I don't know. I'm not a nutritionist). There are a couple other arguments like this that I avoided in the video since it starts to tread in areas that I don't know a lot about!

@@LogicPhilosophy I don't think you have to be a nutritionist to acknowledge that vegetarians exist. But also, why wouldn't "have evolved to depend" be an appeal to nature fallacy as well? Evolving to depend on something is a natural process after all, so wouldn't this constitute a "sneaky appeal to nature" as you mention in your video? Just because we (naturally) evolved to depend on something doesn't mean that we should therefore do it. That's a non sequitur, or am I missing something here? That would only be true if you predicate it on the condition of wanting the survival of humans. Please help me with my questions, and please keep in mind that I'm an idiot when it comes to philosophical thinking/reasoning. I'm just very invested in this particular aspect of the appeal to nature fallacy because it's about the well-being of animals (indirectly).

@@romanski5811 Yes, vegetarians definitely exist. I'm supportive of being vegetarian (for moral reasons) even if I'm not one. I would also say that if you are going to eat meat, then try to eat less meat and don't eat it from factory farms. Here is what went through my mind when I excluded it from the list of examples. 1. Let's assume humans are evolved to depend upon meat. By that, we mean it is a food source that, given the type of organism that we are, satisfies an array of nutritional needs. In saying this, we aren't saying that you cannot live without meat, but that living your life (in a healthy way) w/o eating meat requires some amount of resources (e.g., access) and knowledge (e.g., how to eat without passing out). 2. Now imagine a group of people arguing that eating meat is natural (in the sense above) and they lack the resources and knowledge to live a healthy vegetarian life. They might argue it is better for them (in the prudential / not necessarily moral sense) to eat meat. Maybe they live in a poor country where food crops are mismanaged, or a geographic area where meat is easier to obtain, or education about food to obtain the right nutrition from plants, fruits, etc. Now, I'm pretty skeptical about point (1), but I don't really know enough about what is required to live a healthy vegetarian life. But, I think if we grant (1), then I think there is a plausible case for (2). The short of it is, if meat keeps some people alive/healthy, then it is a good idea to eat it. My general response to this though is (a) this kind of argument is NOT what people normally mean when they say "eating meat is natural, therefore it is good". I think people tend to mean "eating meat is something we do since we are animals (like tigers), therefore it is morally OK for EVERYONE to eat meat. This type of argument strikes me as an appealing to nature fallacy. (b) I'm not super convinced that even if we accept the more modest and sophisticated argument, that this argument even applies to MOST people. For example, I don't think I could use the above argument to excuse myself from being vegetarian. The simple fact is that I could become vegetarian if I put more time, energy, will power into it. But I don't and because I don't, I think you could rightly criticize me on moral (and probably prudential) grounds.

Why is harm avoidance good in a purely material universe? I presume you're operating under that school of thought