> the deduction is not the problem of the naturalistic argument, the axiom that natural equals good is In philosophy deduction is a problem, but there are innu

> the deduction is not the problem of the naturalistic argument, the axiom that natural equals good is In philosophy deduction is a problem, but there are innumerable well reasoned positions which people take that are totally reliant on deduction so it cannot be claimed to identify generally false reasoning (fallacy). It is incorrect to interchange the concepts of "appeal to nature", "naturalistic argument" and "naturalistic fallacy" and presuppose the strength of an axiom of "natural equals good" in different contexts (except perhaps theories of ethics). Notice that you have accepted yourself a universal axiom of "natural has no valid appeal in any context". That is an incredible position to have accepted. If it is argued "natural building materials are better for ecological concerns",or "natural foods are better for health concerns" regard what is intelligibly meant by the statement. Regard what "better" and "natural" and "concerns" mean in each statements context. An appeal to nature in a discussion is an invitation to examine in good faith what is natural to articles under discussion. A reply "arsenic is natural and bad food" is surely not in good faith, surely it can be understood that arsenic is not natural to mammals diet? (except in accidental and rare amounts). Such pontifications should go without saying in good faith discussion, or at least not be offered to claim a perspective is fallacious (invalid).