The Three [ x, y, z ] Fallacies/Distinctions
x: is/true/thought
y: value/belief/feelings
z: ought/justified/behavior
You need all three (synthetic); one can not stand in for the other (analytic).
X:
when you let is/true/thought (x) count for ought/justified/behavior (z)
[ x ] is-ought fallacy/distinction
when you let ought/justified/behavior (z) count for is/true/thought (x)
reverse [ x ] is-ought fallacy
aka ought-is fallacy/distinction
Y:
when you let is/true/thought (x) count for value/belief/feelings (y)
[ y ] fact-value fallacy/distinction
when you let value/belief/feelings (y) count for is/true/thought (x)
reverse [ y ] fact-value fallacy/distinction
aka value-fact fallacy/distinction
Z:
when you let value/belief/feelings (y) count for ought/justified/behavior (z)
[ z ] value-ought fallacy/distinction
aka pathetic/anthropomorphic fallacy/distinction
(related: anthropic principle)
when you let ought/justified/behavior (z) count for value/belief/feelings (y)
reverse [ z ] value-ought fallacy/distinction
aka ought-value fallacy/distinction
Related to X and Y:
naturalistic fallacy (is-ought or status quo fallacy)
fallacy of reification/nihilization—failure to infer (or unwarranted inference of) intended order or purpose (applies to both oughts and values that are not grounded in reality—or whose grounding is not recognized)
fact-value distinction does not apply to oughts (ordering of values)
Related to Z:
dis-anthropomorphism (failure of recognition of intended order or purpose) — bad faith? (when thoughts/feelings don’t follow through in action, or action is incongruent with one’s own thought/feelings
See More… if you dare:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=198635
This is a work in progress in alignment with the harmonic triads:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … t=harmonic
