The Naturalistic Fallacy

[4gold]

This article appeared in the USA Today re: the Church and gay marriage.

When Religion Loses Its Credibility

I wasn't sure whether I should put this post under politics or philosophy. Since I did not want to discuss politics, but rather the philosophy behind this post, I put it here.

The author argues that homosexuality is natural...something you are born with. And if homosexuality is not a "choice, there can be no moral culpability", he argues. This is whole premise and foundation. I've also heard church pastors and authors argue the same point when they discuss why homosexuality is a choice.

But I reject this premise.

G.E. Moore wrote about the naturalistic fallacy. Essentially, the naturalistic fallacy states that philosophers falsely attribute the words "good" or "bad" based on natural properties ("pleasant", "more evolved", "desired", etc.) Thus, people argue that what is natural is inherently good, and what is unnatural is inherently bad.

I agree with Moore. You cannot derive moral goodness or moral wrongdoing from that which is natural.

Hume takes a different approach with the "is-ought" fallacy, which is to say that just because something "is" that way, it is improper to assume that something "ought" to be that way. As we know from Evolution, nature could have taken a million different courses. We cannot derive what ought to be from what is.

It's not just secularists who take this approach. The Bible itself tends to agree with the argument that creation should be separated from the Creator. Leviticus discusses what priests should do when people sin without knowing that they sinned. Romans discusses how righteousness "does not depend on man's desire or effort".

Personally, I felt the author of the USA Today article created a false dichotomy that homosexuality must either be developmental or environmental. I tend to subscribe to Dr. Roughgarten's theory that there is a third option which explains the data. Because the author's critique was not comprehensive, please do not make this topic about whether homosexuality is natural or chosen.

Rather, here are the questions I would like to debate:

(1) Does the author's premise fail either the naturalistic fallacy or the is-ought fallacy test?

(2) If yes, does this degrade the whole argument over homosexuality and morality?

(3) Do YOU think that "without choice, there can be no moral culpability"?

(4) If you are a Christian, can you sin without knowingly sinning?