Appeal to Nature

The Appeal to Nature is a mental shortcut and informal fallacy where we assume that anything “natural” is automatically better, safer, or more virtuous than something “unnatural.” It’s rooted in the intuitive feeling that nature is pure and benevolent - an idea that stretches back to ancient philosophies praising harmony with the natural world. In reality, nature can be both nurturing (e.g., fresh air, clean water, fresh fruits) and ruthless (e.g., poisonous mushrooms, hurricanes, cocaine).

Philosophers such as David Hume and G. E. Moore highlighted that jumping from “what is” in nature to “what ought” to be commits a logical misstep, since nature itself offers no inherent value judgments. Recognizing this bias helps you make clearer decisions by separating feelings about “what’s natural” from solid evidence.

• Deciding not to use an sunscreen because sun exposure is “natural” and therefore safe.
• Choosing only organic foods despite lacking evidence that they deliver extra nutritional value.
• Preferring herbal remedies over modern medicine simply because they’re perceived as more “natural.”
• Standing against genome editing, transgender rights, or some tech advancements because they’re “unnatural.”
• Paying double for “all-natural” skincare that shares the same active ingredients as cheaper, lab-made alternatives.
• Believing our natural immunity to diseases is better than immunity gained through vaccination, simply because it’s the “natural” one.

Before confronting the claim, invite a shared definition of what “natural” means. Ask questions like:

• When you call something natural, what exactly are you including and excluding?
• Do you mean “not processed by humans,” or “originating in the wild,” or something else?
• At what point does a plant extract become “unnatural”?

Once they commit to a precise definition, you can show how it fails to support their conclusion. For instance, if “natural” is defined as “not man-made,” then water from a mud puddle and tap water are equally natural, yet one is potable and the other isn’t. Clarifying the term collapses the illusion that “natural” carries value without further justification.

Present concrete cases in which “natural” and “good” do not align. Instead of abstract objections, choose vivid, topic-relevant examples. For example, for health claims, mention deadly natural poisons like cyanide from fruit pits or botulinum toxin produced by bacteria. Conversely, cite life-saving “unnatural” inventions like antibiotics and insulin. By showing clear exceptions, you undermine the blanket assumption that nature is a reliable moral or health guide.

Encourage examining the claim through an evidence-based lens. Ask questions like:

• What studies support the idea that the natural version outperforms the alternative?
• How can we measure the effectiveness or safety of these two options?
• Do you have data on side effects, failure rates, or comparative trials?

By demanding concrete data you move the conversation from subjective feels to objective facts. This approach also highlights when marketing claims lack substantiation. If the response defaults to anecdote or hearsay, point out that personal stories are easily cherry-picked and rarely represent controlled comparisons.

Socratic questioning involves gently probing underlying assumptions so that the person arrives at inconsistencies in their own reasoning. Instead of simply declaring “You’re wrong,” ask a sequence of open-ended questions:

• What exactly do you mean by ‘natural’ here?
• What makes you believe that being natural implies this is better?
• When does this apply? Where we can spot natural things that are harmful, or man-made things that are beneficial?
• How would you evaluate something that’s natural but untested?
• What evidence would make you revise your view about this “natural” claim?

By guiding them to articulate their premises, you reveal that “naturalness” alone carries no inherent value. As they struggle to define “natural” precisely or to find consistent criteria, the force of the fallacy dissolves.

Sometimes the most direct route is to explain that appealing to nature is a recognized logical fallacy. Share its basic form - “What is natural must be good; therefore, X is good.” or “What is natural is better than what is not natural; therefore, X is better than Y.” For some people simple recognition that they made an error is enough to make them use different arguments.