​短平快学逻辑（五）-道德主义谬误-自然主义谬误-红鲱鱼谬误-

短平快学逻辑（五）-道德主义谬误-自然主义谬误-红鲱鱼谬误-

From: 心理探寻 Psychology心理探寻 4 days ago

（自然主义谬误）

Moralistic Fallacy/道德主义谬误

Explanation/解说

The moralistic fallacy is the opposite of the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy moves from descriptions of how things are to statements of how things ought to be, the moralistic fallacy does the reverse. The moralistic fallacy moves from statements about how things ought to be to statements about how things are; it assumes that the world is as it should be. This, sadly, is a fallacy; sometimes things aren’t as they ought to be.

道德主义谬误与自然主义谬误相反。

自然主义谬误：

事物实际是这样的

因此

事物应该是这样的

道德主义谬误：

事物应该是这样的

因此

事物实际是这样的

道德主义谬误认为这个世界应该是它本应有的样子。但不幸的是这是一种谬误。有时候事物并不是它们本应有的样子。

Examples/示例

Have you ever crossed a one-way street without looking in both directions? If you have, reasoning that people shouldn’t be driving the wrong way up a one way street so there’s no risk of being run over from that direction, then you’ve committed the moralistic fallacy.

你是否曾在横穿一条单行道前不会两个方向都看一下呢？如果你曾有过这一经历，认为人们不会在单行道上逆行，因此不可能会被从那个方向来的车辆撞倒，那么你就犯了道德主义谬误。

Sometimes things aren’t as they ought to be. Sometimes people drive in directions that they shouldn’t. The rules of the road don’t necessarily describe actual driving practices.

有时候事物并不是它们本应有的样子。有时候人们也会朝他们不该行驶的方向行驶。路面交通规则并不一定就代表着实际驾驶行为。

Naturalistic Fallacy/自然主义谬误

Explanation/解说

There are two fundamentally different types of statement: statements of fact which describe the way that the world is, and statements of value which describe the way that the world ought to be. The naturalistic fallacy is the alleged fallacy of inferring a statement of the latter kind from a statement of the former kind.

有两种截然不同的陈述类型：事实陈述和价值陈述。

事实陈述描述世界的实际状态。

价值陈述描述世界本应有的状态。

自然主义谬误则是从事实陈述推断出价值陈述。

Arguments cannot introduce completely new terms in their conclusions. The argument, “(1) All men are mortal, (2) Socrates is a man, therefore (3) Socrates is a philosopher” is clearly invalid; the conclusion obviously doesn’t follow from the premises. This is because the conclusion contains an idea—that of being a philosopher—that isn’t contained in the premises; the premises say nothing about being a philosopher, and so cannot establish a conclusion about being a philosopher.

论证是不可以在结论中提出全新的概念的。

比如：

1）所有人都会死

2）苏格拉底是人

因此

3）苏格拉底是位哲学家

这一论证很明显是无效的，其结论也明显并不符合前提。这是因为结论中所包含的概念，即哲学家，并未出现在前提之中。

前提丝毫没有提到哲学家，因此也就无法证明“是哲学家”这一结论。

Arguments that commit the naturalistic fallacy are arguably flawed in exactly the same way. An argument whose premises merely describe the way that the world is, but whose conclusion describes the way that the world ought to be, introduce a new term in the conclusion in just the same way as the above example.

自然主义谬误的问题也正是在此。当然这一点可能会存在争议。在一个论证中，前提只是描述了世界实际的样子，但结论却描述了世界应有的样子，这就如同上面的示例，相当于在结论中提出了一个全新的概念。

If the premises merely describe the way that the world is then they say nothing about the way that the world ought to be. Such factual premises cannot establish any value judgement; you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’.

如果前提只是描述了世界实际状态，那么它就丝毫未提及世界应有的状态。这些事实型前提并不能证明任何价值判断型结论。

从“应该”无法推断出“是”。

Examples/示例

(1) Feeling envy is only natural.

Therefore:

(2) There’s nothing wrong with feeling envy.

（1）自然会感到嫉妒

因此

（2）感到嫉妒，这没什么不对的。

This argument moves from a statement of fact to a value judgement, and therefore commits the naturalistic fallacy.

这一论证就从一段事实陈述得出一个价值判断，因此就犯了自然主义谬误。

It is important to note that much respectable moral argument commits the naturalistic fallacy. Whether arguments of the form described here are fallacious is controversial. If they are, then the vast majority of moral philosophy commits a basic logical error.

需要注意的是，很多备受推崇的道德论证都犯有自然主义谬误。这种类型的论证是否是谬误，这还存在争议。如果它们算是谬误的话，那大部分道德哲学（伦理学）就都犯了这种基本的逻辑谬误。

Red Herring/红鲱鱼谬误

Explanation/解说

The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating, and effective, fallacies to observe.

红鲱鱼即是一种辩论策略，也是一种逻辑谬误。它是一种转移谬误，当一个人试图用另一话题将论证者从其论证上引开时，这个人就犯了红鲱鱼谬误。

这可能是最令人挫败、最有效的谬误之一。

The fallacy gets its name from fox hunting, specifically from the practice of using smoked herrings, which are red, to distract hounds from the scent of their quarry. Just as a hound may be prevented from catching a fox by distracting it with a red herring, so an arguer may be prevented from proving his point by distracting him with a tangential issue.

该谬误名称来源于捕猎狐狸，具体是指用红色烟熏鲱鱼将猎犬从其猎物嗅迹上引开。正如猎犬可能会被红鲱鱼吸引注意力，不再去继续捕捉狐狸，一位论证者也可能会因一个不相关的问题而转移注意力，不再去继续证明自己的论点。

Example/示例

Many of the fallacies of relevance can take red herring form. An appeal to pity, for example, can be used to distract from the issue at hand:

“You may think that he cheated on the test, but look at the poor little thing! How would he feel if you made him sit it again?”

很多相关性谬误都可能会采取红鲱鱼谬误形式。比如，诉诸怜悯，就可以用来将人们的注意力从主题上引开：

你可能觉得他考试作弊了，但看看他这个可怜的小家伙，如果你让他再考一次，他会有怎样的感受呢？

Weak Analogy/弱类比谬误

Explanation/解说

Arguments by analogy rest on a comparison. Their logical structure is this:

(1) A and B are similar.

(2) A has a certain characteristic.

Therefore:

(3) B must have that characteristic too.

类比论证基于类比。逻辑结构如下：

1）A和B相似

2）A具有某种特征

因此

3）B也肯定具有这种特征。

For example, William Paley’s argument from design suggests that a watch and the universe are similar (both display order and complexity), and therefore infers from the fact that watches are the product of intelligent design that the universe must be a product of intelligent design too.

例如，William Paley的设计论证认为：

腕表和宇宙是相似的（都表现出秩序和复杂性）

腕表是智慧设计的产物

因此

宇宙也肯定是智慧设计的产物

An argument by analogy is only as strong as the comparison on which it rests. The weak analogy fallacy (or “false analogy”, or “questionable analogy”) is committed when the comparison is not strong enough.

类比论证的强弱取决于类比本身的强弱。弱类比谬误（或假类比、有问题的类比）的问题就在于其所使用的类比并不够缜密。