The naturalistic fallacy is an error in reasoning that assumes we can derive values (what we ought to do) from facts about the world (what is the case). The fact-value distinction distinguishes between what is the case (facts) and what we think ought to be the case (values) based on beliefs about what is good, beautiful, important, etc.

Descriptive claims are statements about matters of fact, whereas evaluative claims express a judgment about something’s value. Descriptive claims make statements about how the world is.

Value theory — the philosophical investigation of values. In its narrow sense, it refers to metaethical concerns. In its broader sense, it addresses a variety of values (ethical, social…. Fact-value distinction — the distinction between what is the case (facts) and what people think ought to be the case (values) based on beliefs about what is good, beautiful, important, etc. Is-ought problem — problem that asserts the challenge of moving from statements of fact (something is ) to statements of value (something ought to be). Naturalistic fallacy — an error in reasoning that assumes one can derive values (what people ought to do) from facts about the world (what is the case).