The first fallacy in philosophy, and not just the philosophy of ethics, is neither just the is-ought fallacy, nor just the failure to respect the fact-value distinction, but the fallacy of confusing the former for the latter: conflating oughts and values. This is relevant across every field, not just ethics, because it boils down and adds up to confusing action and quality. Together with the is/fact (substance) element from the first two mentioned fallacies, these three elements constitute the is-ought-value distinction, or the substance, action, quality triad. All three are required to obtain true, justified belief (knowledge) about anything, in any field of philosophy (including all the sciences). They are required together, but distinctly. One cannot stand in for either of the others.
But let’s begin in the field of ethics…
Messy work under construction:
Note: It feels like there should not be L1-L3 AND L1.1-L1.3+. Try to smooth out the litmuses here. (Mesh with other triads & vice versa.)
Faith is the instinct of the animal herd. Human reason is doubt and the ability to hold contradictions in the mind. When reason is replaced by faith, we get an animal that looks like a human outwardly and cannot understand the meaning of human words. This is the whole problem of ethics and humanity in general. Faith excludes knowledge.
The first fallacy is shopping? Shopping is directly from Satan? Yes. I’m gonna go with yes on that one.
Or with “economical gain“ (like what prosperity preachers are all about) do you mean treating people like means instead of ends, or doing stuff to appear good while hiding your bad intentions, or thinking your good works will earn you unconditional love (oxymoron).
Those all result from mistaking oughts for values. The good, beautiful thing is when your values (ends/intentions) fuel your oughts (means/behaviors), and the latter demonstrate the former. This comes from knowing you don’t earn unconditional love, so you can dish it out unconditionally.