The naturalistic fallacy, identified by G.E. Moore, warns against deriving 'ought' from 'is'—just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good. Yet evolutionary psychologists sometimes explain human behaviors (aggression, jealousy) as adaptations, and critics worry such explanations risk naturalizing harmful behaviors. Defenders argue that explaining a behavior's origins is distinct from endorsing it—understanding why jealousy evolved doesn't justify jealous violence.
Based on the passage, it can be inferred that
evolutionary explanations always morally justify behaviors
harmful behaviors have no evolutionary basis
G.E. Moore was an evolutionary psychologist
distinguishing descriptive claims from normative claims may be important when evolutionary explanations are offered
Correct Answer: D
Choice D is the best answer. The defense separates explaining (descriptive) from endorsing (normative).
- Context clues: Defenders argue explanation "is distinct from endorsing."
- Meaning: The naturalistic fallacy exists because descriptive and normative claims are different.
- Verify: The distinction addresses the critics' worry about naturalizing harmful behaviors.
💡 Strategy: When a defense relies on a distinction, infer that distinction's importance.
Choice A is incorrect because the defense explicitly rejects this conflation. Choice B is incorrect because aggression and jealousy are called "adaptations." Choice C is incorrect because Moore identified a fallacy—he wasn't an evolutionary psychologist.