To me the two poles here are the naturalistic fallacy and the moralistic fallacy. The former is basically "what is natural is right", and the latter is "what is right is true". Both of them for me are Mencken's "clear, simple, and wrong".
"Natural" is basically a billion years of historical accidents, so there's no reason to expect it to be optimal from our perspective. We need to think about what we truly want the world to be. But we can't assume that the world is just going to be like we want. As when building anything, we must look closely at the characteristics of the raw materials and work with them to achieve our goals.
To me the two poles here are the naturalistic fallacy and the moralistic fallacy. The former is basically "what is natural is right", and the latter is "what is right is true". Both of them for me are Mencken's "clear, simple, and wrong".
"Natural" is basically a billion years of historical accidents, so there's no reason to expect it to be optimal from our perspective. We need to think about what we truly want the world to be. But we can't assume that the world is just going to be like we want. As when building anything, we must look closely at the characteristics of the raw materials and work with them to achieve our goals.