Are you sure that's what the naturalistic fallacy is? I've always understood the naturalistic fallacy to be that, for some things, it was fallacious to try and

Are you sure that's what the naturalistic fallacy is? I've always understood the naturalistic fallacy to be that, for some things, it was fallacious to try and break them down into simpler parts. This idea is often invoked in the context of academic moral philosophy. So far as I can tell, it seems like you are talking about something closer to "appeal to nature", and your own link even has a line urging people not to confuse one for the other. >The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with the appeal to nature fallacy, which is exemplified by forms of reasoning such as "Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable" or "This property is unnatural; therefore, this property is undesirable."