Arrested Development and Philosophy_ They've Made a Huge Mistake - Kristopher G. Phillips [13]
We live in an environment that has been altered by human beings, an environment replete with yachts, model homes, and Frozen Banana Stands. Given that we’re immersed in an environment that has been altered by human beings, it’s hard to distinguish actions that are “natural” and those that are “unnatural.” Take, for example, Maeby’s mysterious origin. If she was “made in a cup” for $130,000, it’s possible that she was conceived using in-vitro-fertilization (IVF). One IVF method would involve taking an egg from Lindsay, taking some sperm from Tobias, fertilizing the egg in a Petri dish, and then implanting that fertilized egg in Lindsay. Some people will argue that IVF is unnatural and thus morally wrong. But is it any more “unnatural” than birth control, perfume, deodorant, caesarian sections, ultrasounds, or antibiotics? All of these actions involve “alteration by human beings.” Advocates of the Argument from Naturalism will be forced to claim that using antibiotics (or deodorant, perfume, and other things that make us smell fabulous) is morally wrong.
This leaves us with the third definition: Something is natural if it is most common, most typical. According to this definition, it’s not that the unnatural is never found in nature—it’s simply that the unnatural is unusual, it isn’t the norm. And what isn’t natural, according to premise 2, isn’t morally right.
Those who object to the Argument from Naturalism don’t have much to say in response to premise 1 if defenders of the argument adopt Definition 3. It’s easily and empirically proven that some actions—kissing someone you believe to be your cousin, riding a Segway, fanatical devotion to your mother—aren’t typical. But the perils of using Definition 3 emerge when premise 2 is analyzed. Let’s have a look at this in our trusty old argument form.
1. Incest is not typical, usual, or most common.
2. If incest is not typical, usual, or most common, then incest is morally wrong.
3. Therefore, incest is morally wrong.
The big problem here is obvious: something can be both unusual and uncommon, and still be completely moral (or at least not immoral). If it were immoral to be unusual, then it would be immoral to have a high IQ, to be exceptionally generous, or to have your hand bitten off by a seal. Clearly, though, these things are not immoral. Likewise, it would be immoral for a Bluth to be caring, insightful, or compassionate. But actually, we think Michael is morally good to the extent that he manifests these traits.
People who use the Argument from Naturalism often engage in a philosophical sleight-of-hand (illusion!) known as the fallacy of equivocation. This is the fallacy committed when a single word or phrase is used with two different meanings in order to draw a false conclusion. Many jokes in Arrested Development rely on instances of the fallacy of equivocation (The Man Inside Me, anyone?). When someone uses “unnatural” to mean “atypical or unusual” or “not found in nature” and then switches the meaning in the middle of the argument to “morally wrong” that person commits the fallacy of equivocation.
The Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–1776) offered a critique alternately called Hume’s Law, The Fact/Value Distinction, or the Is/Ought Distinction that undermines the Argument from Naturalism. Any argument that moves from a claim that some fact is true in the world, to the claim that something ought to be true in the world, is philosophically questionable. You’re reading this book. It doesn’t follow that you ought to be. Arrested Development got canceled. It definitely doesn’t follow that it should have been.
The upshot is that the Argument from Naturalism isn