In recent posts I have been discussing human nature as it relates to good <—> evil, and bad human <—> good human. However, G. E. Moore cautions us about taking Nature and making it good or bad. He cautions us about making moral judgments about Nature (including human nature). For Moore, a naturalistic fallacy (false notion of Nature) is taking values and fraudulently applying them to Nature (1903). It happens when we attempt to derive ought-ness from is-ness. Something exists —-> it just “is.” The “is-ness” of Nature is the way it actually is. However, just because something exists does not necessarily mean that it “ought” to do, or be so and so. Or, just because human nature exists (is) does not mean it ought to be good, or bad, or any other value. The fallacy is trying to define something that can’t be defined. From a naturalistic fallacy point of view human nature is what exists up to its current state of evolution. It suggest that there is a need to view a person as he/she is, rather than what we wish he/she ought to be. According to Rabbi Kusher “nature is morally blind, without values. It churns along, following its own laws, not caring who or what gets in the way.” (1981) According to G. E. Moore, “we must not, therefore, be frightened by the assertion that a thing is natural into the admission that it is good; good does not, by definition, mean anything that is natural; and it is therefore always an open question whether anything that is natural is good.” (1903) What do you think about the Naturalistic Fallacy concept?