Vacula 1

Justin Vacula

Eastern Philosophy

Dr. Irwin

February 17, 2011

Pooh, P'u, Pooh, It's the Naturalistic Fallacy!

Benajamin Hoff's The Tao of Pooh gives readers a light introduction into understanding Taoism

via the characters of A. A. Milne. Hoff's book makes Taoism easily accessible because readers such as

myself have a general base of knowledge about the characters in The Adventures of Winnie the Pooh.

Taoism embraces that which is natural: “The essence of the principle of the Uncarved Block,” Hoff

explains, “is that things in their natural simplicity contain their own natural power, power that is easily

spoiled and lost when that simplicity is changed” (Hoff 10). I will argue that the principle of the

Uncarved Block and some other aspects of Taoism commit the naturalistic fallacy and that, while many

ideas related to it seem to be tenable and may contain wisdom, labeling something good or bad because

it is natural is an improper guideline to follow.

Hoff explains that we can't explain too much about the principles of Taoism because we will be

confused and think that the idea is merely an intellectual one that would be ignored, thus we can't reach

a full (or fuller) understanding of the Uncarved Block. Hoff believes that Winnie the Pooh embodies

the Uncarved Block. Pooh's life is quite simple, fun, and practical. Taoism takes the view that simple-

mindedness [not stupidity] is a good thing that is of the natural order, while cleverness leads one to

wasted time and no true wisdom. Taoism wants us to “recognize Inner Nature and work with Things As

They Are. When we don't, we get into trouble” (50).Hoff also mentions that, “people are easily led

away from what's right for them, because people have Brain, and Brain can be fooled. Inner nature,

when relied on, cannot be fooled” (57). All of this information leads us to the conclusion that Taoism

embraces that which is natural and deems it good.

 Vacula 2

The concept of Wu Wei further embraces the natural as being good; “Tao doesn't force or

interfere with things, but lets them work in their own way, to produce results naturally” (70). According

to Lao-Tse, an important Taoist figure, “the more man interfered with the natural balance produced and

governed by the natural laws, the further away the harmony retreated into the distance” (4). K'ung Fu-

tse “believed that the present was out of step with the past, and that the government of man on earth

was out of harmony with the Way of Heaven, the government of the universe.” More of information

such as this provided in Hoff's book demonstrates that Taoism wants us to believe that the natural is

that which is good.

A major criticism of Taoism is that it often commits the naturalistic fallacy in its core tenants.

David Hume famously argued that you cannot derive an ought from an is. You can look at the world,

understand what exists, and identify aspects of nature, but you must propose a system of values and

make ethical judgments to determine that something is good. We can appeal to a value system and say

what a person ought to do, but making an observation about the natural world is not enough to make a

moral judgment. In other words, just because something exists in a state of nature does not entail that it

has a moral basis. Taoism embraces the idea that one's Inner Nature is good and should be followed,

but it's impossible, using Hume's criterion, to state that this is the case by just appealing to the way the

world is.

Taoists may try to respond to Hume's distinction and evoke a spiritual sense of reality that

makes the natural good, but then the Taoists would have to explain how this spiritual element is good

and how it deems that something is good. Taoists may also argue saying that Hume is simply too clever

and that his cleverness is obscuring the way things really are, but this is just dismissing the objection

and not actually trying to find flaws in the argument. The defender of Hume could easily just say that

the Taoist was being too simple and isn't able or doesn't want to grasp what the academics have

revealed that poses a threat to their beliefs in the goodness and desirability of the natural. Such
 Vacula 3

strategies of argumentation are akin to personal attacks and red herring arguments and don't directly

address the issues at hand.

Many people or things in nature may exhibit natural properties that are not desirable such as

mental illnesses, aggressive tendencies, or genetic disorders. Note that these items are not automatically

undesirable or desirable because they exist and are naturally occurring, but rather because they are

maladaptive and do not positively enhance a person (in most cases). Would the Taoist say that a serial

rapist should embrace his/her inner nature? Hoff's book did not describe this or counter this refutation,

but the Taoist would probably mention that these maladaptive items are not in line with The Way

Things Are. Whether or not this is “moving the goal posts” is unknown to me because I don't have a

full understanding of Taoism; my knowledge comes only from Hoff's book. I can be greatly mistaken

here, but I'm willing to admit my ignorance and change my position.

I find that many redeeming qualities of various ideas of Taoism I discussed can be found, but

serious problems lie in the assertion that what is natural is good and desirable. As Hume famously

argued, we can not derive an ought from an is and must create a value system to derive good from

nature. In addition, many natural states may be maladaptive and should not be desired for this reason. It

may be good to hold to maxims such as “be yourself” and have the wonder such that a child has.

Looking at the world with an open mind, as Taoism suggests, can be very beneficial and can open us to

new points of view, led us to think harder about our steadfast beliefs that shape our lives, and can

simply just be an entertaining experience. We can take many elements from Taoism that we enjoy,

apply them to our lives, and not have to subscribe to any dogma.
 Vacula 4

Works Cited

H o f f , B e n j a m i n . T h e Ta o o f P o o h . To r o n t o : P e n g u i n B o o k s , 1 9 8 2 . P r i n t .