Editing Naturalistic fallacy (section)

===The is–ought problem===
{{Main|Is–ought problem}}

The term ''naturalistic fallacy'' is sometimes used to label the problematic inference of an ''ought'' from an ''is'' (the [[is–ought problem]]).<ref>W. H. Bruening, "Moore on 'Is-Ought'," ''Ethics'' 81 (January 1971): 143–49.</ref> Michael Ridge relevantly elaborates that "[t]he intuitive idea is that evaluative conclusions require at least one evaluative premise—purely factual premises about the naturalistic features of things do not entail or even support evaluative conclusions."<ref name = "sep" /> This problematic inference usually takes the form of saying that if people generally ''do'' something (e.g., eat three times a day, smoke cigarettes, dress warmly in cold weather), then people ''ought to'' do that thing. The naturalistic fallacy occurs when the is–ought inference ("People eat three times a day, so it is morally good for people to eat three times a day") is justified by the claim that whatever practice exists is a natural one ("because eating three times a day is pleasant and desirable").

[[Jeremy Bentham|Bentham]], in discussing the relations of law and morality, found that when people discuss problems and issues they talk about how they wish it would be, instead of how it actually is. This can be seen in discussions of [[natural law]] and [[positive law]]. Bentham criticized natural law theory because in his view it was an instance of the naturalistic fallacy, claiming that it described how things are rather than how they ought to be.