Appeal to Nature Fallacy
Also known as: Naturalistic Fallacy
What is Appeal to Nature?
The appeal to nature fallacy occurs when someone argues that something is inherently good, right, or superior because it is 'natural,' or that something is bad or inferior because it is 'unnatural' or synthetic. This reasoning assumes that nature is an inherent standard of quality or morality. However, natural does not automatically mean beneficial (many natural substances are toxic), and unnatural does not automatically mean harmful (many life-saving medicines are synthetic).
Example
A discussion about food choices and nutrition.
“I only use natural remedies because natural is always better than synthetic. Chemical medicines are unnatural and therefore harmful.”
Many natural substances are toxic (arsenic, hemlock, mercury), and many synthetic medicines save millions of lives (insulin, antibiotics, vaccines). Whether something is natural or synthetic tells you nothing about whether it is safe, effective, or beneficial. Each should be evaluated on its own evidence.
How to Spot It
- The words 'natural' or 'unnatural' are used as primary arguments for or against something.
- Something is assumed to be safe or beneficial solely because it occurs in nature.
- Synthetic or artificial products are dismissed without evaluating their actual effects.
- No evidence beyond the natural/unnatural classification is provided.
How to Counter It
- Provide examples of harmful natural things and beneficial synthetic things.
- Point out that 'natural' and 'healthy/good' are not synonyms.
- Ask for specific evidence of benefit or harm beyond the natural/unnatural label.
- Note that virtually everything humans use has been processed or modified from its natural state.
Related Fallacies
Check your arguments for logical fallacies
Try the Fallacy Checker