F022 • Informal - Relevance/Appeals
Also known as: Argumentum ad Naturam, Natural Fallacy, Naturalistic Fallacy
There is a deep pull toward the natural -- a feeling that things found in nature are inherently safer, better, or more trustworthy than things we have created. That feeling is not random; for most of human history, it was a decent guide. The Appeal to Nature is what happens when that instinct hardens into a rule: natural means good, artificial means suspect -- no further questions needed.
Loading examples...
X is natural (or unnatural); therefore X is good (or bad)
The instinct to favor the natural served us well in environments where most of what we encountered was, in fact, natural. If a plant had been eaten safely by your community for generations, it probably was safe. That heuristic still has value in some contexts -- it just does not have the value we tend to give it. Nature produces arsenic, hemlock, and earthquakes alongside sunlight and fresh water. Human ingenuity produces antibiotics and water purification alongside pollution. The word 'natural' tells you something about where a thing came from, but it tells you surprisingly little about whether it is good for you. The real work is evaluating each case on its actual properties -- safety, effectiveness, impact -- rather than sorting it into 'natural' or 'artificial' and letting the category do the evaluation for you.
| When 'natural' is used purely descriptively, not evaluatively (e.g., 'natural habitat') |
| In contexts where naturalness is actually relevant (e.g., biodegradability for environmental impact) |
| When backed by evidence showing the specific natural property confers an actual advantage |
| In aesthetic or authenticity judgments where naturalness is an explicit criterion |
| You might notice yourself feeling reassured when something is described as 'natural' or uneasy when something is described as 'artificial' -- before you have actually evaluated what the thing is or does. |
| Pay attention when the word 'natural' seems to be ending a conversation rather than starting one. If 'it is natural' feels like a complete argument, the heuristic may have replaced the evaluation. |
| Watch for moments when you assume that anything humans have created or modified is inherently suspect, while anything found in nature gets a pass. |
| Notice when 'natural' is being used as if it means 'safe' or 'good' -- those are very different claims, and the slide from one to the other often happens without examination. |
| Thinking that all references to nature are fallacious -- naturalness can be relevant in some contexts, such as environmental impact or biodegradability. The fallacy is in treating naturalness as automatic proof of goodness. |
| Swinging to the opposite extreme and dismissing everything labeled 'natural' -- many natural things are genuinely beneficial. The point is not that natural is bad, but that natural is not the same as good. |
| Not recognizing that 'natural' is often poorly defined. Humans are part of nature, so in what sense is anything we make 'unnatural'? The category does less work than it appears to. |
| Appeal to Nature |
|---|
| Arguing that something is good, right, or superior simply because it is natural, or that something is bad simply because it is artificial or unnatural. |
| The naturalness of something is independent of its goodness, safety, or effectiveness. Many natural things are harmful (poison, diseases, natural disasters), and many synthetic things are beneficial (medicine, shelter, clothing). Natural selection optimized for survival, not for human well-being or ethics. |
Hover to see definition, click to view full details