Is the ‘Naturalistic Fallacy’ a Fallacy? The Case of Economics with Hicks & Salsman

The Atlas Society Presents - The Atlas Society Asks

Join Senior Scholars Stephen Hicks, Ph.D., and Richard Salsman, Ph.D. for a philosophical discussion on the intersection of ethics and economics:

“For centuries, the ‘is-ought’ (or ‘fact-value’) dichotomy has been a perennial issue in philosophy (see Hume) and remains so today. Those who reject it and contend that morality can (and should!) be objective and fact-based are accused of committing ‘the naturalistic fallacy.’ In economics, the is-ought dichotomy takes the form of a supposed conflict between ‘positive’ and ‘normative’ economics. Even pro-capitalist Austrian economists say economics isn’t science unless it is ‘value-free.’ Is this valid? Is the argument about the ‘naturalistic fallacy’ itself fallacious? If the good isn’t to be grounded in nature (including human nature), then what or whence? Only the supernatural?”