IMPERATIVES AND THE NATURALISTIC FALLACY: When We Realize That What Exists Is Not Always What Should Be, and That Knowing Is Not the Same as Becoming

There is a deep hunger in the human mind

to understand the world—

to name it,

to describe it,

to explain how it works.


And there is a deeper hunger still—

to change it.

To shape it.

To live in it in a way

that feels right.


Between these two longings—

to understand and to live well—

lies a quiet but powerful tension.


Because what is

is not always what ought to be.


And this tension is where

imperatives meet the naturalistic fallacy.





What Are Imperatives?



Imperatives are not observations.

They are instructions.

They do not say,

“This is how things are.”

They say,

“This is how you must act.”

“This is what you should do.”

“This is what is right.”


They come from many places:


  • From ethics
  • From culture
  • From conscience
  • From deeply held beliefs about what matters



Imperatives are our attempts

to guide behavior with meaning.

They turn knowledge into responsibility.

They turn judgment into choice.


But imperatives must be justified.

And that’s where things become delicate.





The Temptation of the Naturalistic Fallacy



The naturalistic fallacy is simple—

and everywhere.


It happens when we confuse fact with value.

When we say:


  • “This is natural,
    therefore it’s good.”
  • “This is how people behave,
    so this is how they should behave.”
  • “It has always been this way,
    so it must be right.”



But the world as it is

is not always what it should be.


Nature includes compassion—

but also cruelty.

Evolution rewards survival—

but not always kindness.

History records injustice—

and calls it normal.


To leap from what is

to what should be

without reflection

is to fall into a dangerous quietness:

a world where morality becomes a mirror

instead of a vision.





Why This Fallacy Persists



It persists because we crave coherence.

We want the world to make sense.

We want what’s real

to also be what’s right.


And sometimes,

we want permission—

to stay comfortable,

to follow the norm,

to avoid the work of change.


“It’s always been this way,”

we say—

and stop asking

if that way is worthy.


But morality is not about staying the same.

It’s about asking

what deserves to be preserved

and what must be transformed.





Living with the Tension



The task, then, is not to throw away the facts.

They matter.

But we must not let them dictate our values.


  • Just because competition exists
    doesn’t mean we should abandon care.
  • Just because inequality persists
    doesn’t mean it is just.
  • Just because something is widespread
    doesn’t mean it is wise.



To live morally

is to see clearly—

and still choose differently.


To say:

I see what is.

And I still hold a vision

for what could be more just,

more human,

more whole.





A Closing Reflection



If you find yourself making a claim—

about what should be done,

what is right,

what others must do—

pause.


Ask:


  • Am I grounding this in what’s real,
    or what’s worthy?
  • Am I confusing what has been
    with what should continue?
  • Am I willing to let values speak
    even when the facts are loud?



Because truth is not just in observation.

It’s in orientation.

And imperatives—when grounded with care—

become not commands,

but commitments.




And in the end, imperatives and the naturalistic fallacy remind us

that to live well

is not to merely reflect the world—

but to engage with it.

To ask not just,

“What is natural?”

but

“What is needed?”

Not just,

“What do we see?”

but

“What do we stand for?”

And when we make that leap consciously—

bridging the world that is

with the world that could be—

we step into our highest human calling:

Not just to know,

but to choose.

Not just to observe,

but to become.