Appeal to Nature
A logical fallacy that assumes natural is always better than unnatural, often adopted as a default belief without justification.
THE IDEA
Appeal to Nature
Argumentum ad Naturam
Description
The appeal to nature fallacy occurs when someone argues that something is good, right, or superior solely because it is “natural,” or that something is bad, wrong, or inferior simply because it is “unnatural.” This belief is often adopted as a default assumption without further justification. The fallacy relies on a hidden equivocation of the word “natural”—conflating “natural” as in “occurring in the physical world” with “natural” as in “proper,” “moral,” or “inherently beneficial.” It should not be confused with the naturalistic fallacy (the claim that moral properties can be defined in terms of natural properties); although often conflated online, the two are distinct errors.
Logical Form
- X is natural.
- Therefore, X is good (or better than unnatural alternatives).
How It Works
The argument treats “natural” as an all-purpose stamp of approval, ignoring that countless natural phenomena are harmful (e.g., diseases, earthquakes, predators) and countless unnatural interventions are beneficial (e.g., medicine, sanitation, technology). By shifting from a descriptive fact about nature to a prescriptive value judgment without providing any relevant criteria, the reasoning bypasses genuine evaluation.
Examples
Example #1
Natural foods are better than processed foods because they are natural.
Explanation: Appreciation for natural products is one thing, but claiming universal “betterness” requires agreed-upon criteria. For some, paying nearly double for similar foods is not better. For others, a little insecticide on an apple might be preferable to insects inside it. Even aesthetic choices like synthetic hair dye or supportive undergarments demonstrate that natural is not automatically preferable.
Example #2
Cocaine is not bad for you because it is all natural.
Explanation: Many things in the world are entirely natural and extremely harmful—cocaine, viruses, monsoons, and earthquakes among them. Conversely, “unnatural” things such as aspirin, pacemakers, and surgery can be profoundly beneficial. A substance’s origin in nature says nothing about its safety or value.
Example #3
"Of course, homosexuality is unnatural because you don’t see same-sex animals copulating."
Explanation: This reasoning mistakenly assumes that (a) behaviors observed in nature determine what is morally correct, (b) a behavior’s rarity in nature makes it wrong, and (c) same-sex behavior is absent among animals (which is false). Even if a behavior were absent in the non-human world, that would not establish a moral rule.
Exception
Many natural things are better than unnatural alternatives, but that superiority must be demonstrated through relevant, non-circular criteria—not simply asserted from their “naturalness.”
Tip
Keep in mind that Mother Nature is the kind of mother who wouldn’t hesitate to throw you in a dumpster and leave you there to die.
When to use it
Evaluating food choices: arguing that organic or 'natural' foods are always healthier without considering nutritional science.
Assessing medical treatments: assuming herbal remedies are safer than synthetic drugs simply because they are natural.
Environmental debates: claiming that human-made interventions (like GMOs or sunscreen) are harmful because they are 'unnatural'.
Comparing claims about farming methods by examining their stated benefits and harms rather than treating a natural label as proof.
Arguments against vaccination because it involves 'unnatural' chemicals.
Justification for traditional gender roles by claiming they are natural.
Product labeling with 'all-natural' to imply safety and superiority.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Natural Foods
Natural foods are better than processed foods because they are natural.
Explanation: I can appreciate natural food and products as much as the next granola-eating guy, but to make any claim of “betterness”, one needs to establish criteria by which to judge. Perhaps not paying almost twice as much for the same general foods is “better” for me. Perhaps I prefer a little insecticide on my apple to insects inside my apple. And maybe I like faux brunettes with perky breasts due to “unnatural” bra support. Natural is not always “better”.
Cocaine is Natural
Cocaine is not bad for you because it is all natural.
Explanation: There are a very many things in this world that are “all natural” and very bad for you besides cocaine, including, earthquakes, monsoons and viruses, just to name a few. Whereas “unnatural” things such as aspirin, pacemakers, and surgery can be very good things.
Homosexuality and Nature
Of course, homosexuality is unnatural because you don’t see same-sex animals copulating.
The example contains a false factual premise about animal behavior. More fundamentally, whether a behavior occurs in other animals does not by itself establish whether human conduct is morally acceptable.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
When have you heard someone use 'natural' as a reason to prefer something? Is there a valid justification beyond the label 'natural'?
Why might people instinctively assume natural is better? Can you think of examples where unnatural choices are objectively superior?
How can you critically evaluate claims that rely on the naturalness of a product or idea?
Choose a product advertised as natural. What specific evidence would you need to compare its safety, cost, and effectiveness with an alternative?
How might the appeal to nature fallacy be used to justify harmful 'natural' remedies?
What are some commonly accepted practices that are 'unnatural' but beneficial?
Often confused with
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Wisdom Theory 100 Mental Models (2020) (Wisdom Theory)
- Logically Fallacious - The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies