description

The Naturalistic Fallacy is an attempt to convince the opponent to change a moral or aesthetic argument in your favour because of the opinion of somebody who has a great deal of technical knowledge of something involved in the topic. For example, a molecular biologist may have an opinion on the morals of drug use because he understands the physics of molecular bonding. This does not make him an expert in the ethical questions surrounding such a controversy.

The Naturalistic Fallacy is a special case of appeal to questionable authority.

Personally, this argument strategy disappoints me, because I frequently see it in the more educated, usually science or technology experts, who seem to convince themselves that a technical understanding of biology or physics or medicine gives them superior insight into the moral ramifications of cloning, gene therapy, racism, our violent behavior as a species, and other ethical foofaraws. An opinion of themselves I believe is unjustified.

examples

"As a biologist, I know a lot about genetics. I can assure you that sterilization of the unintelligent in our society is morally justified."

"As a scientist, I understand the nuts and bolts of genetically modifying foods. I believe that I am specially qualified to determine whether genetically modified foods should be specially labelled, so the public to identify them on store shelves, and I say there is no reason. Those who say they should be labelled do not understand the underlying technology."