The claims made by Social Darwinists and their heirs suffer from the ethical fallacy known as "the naturalistic fallacy" (no connection to naturalism in explanations and the study of knowledge mentioned above). This is the inference from what may be the case to the conclusion that it is therefore right. However, while it is certainly true that, for example, some families are prone to suffer diabetes, as mine is, there is no licence to conclude that they should not be treated, any more than the fact that a child has a broken arm from a bicycle accident implies that the child should have a broken arm. David Hume long ago showed that "is" does not imply "ought".

Let's unpack this a little. The naturalistic fallacy is the assumption that because a condition exists, it is "right." However, they are assuming that right exists, and itself is "right," even though "right" is a judgment that requires a perceiver and therefore is rooted in anthropomorphism and nothing else -- we assume the universe/cosmos/world thinks as we do.

What is can be declared to be what is, and nothing more. However, we would double the mistake of declaring it something more by declaring right to be inherent, or necessary. How about taking time into account, for the first time in human thought, and saying that what is is en route to being something else, and that instead of right, we should argue for what might be beautiful/sensible/holistic?

Our species is possessed by this double naturalistic fallacy. It assumes that its assumptions, because they exist in human brains, are "right" in the sense of the universe. It's like two gamblers comparing cards, between an idealized humanity and the universe (and its order). For those who don't think too deeply, it's a handy argument against any theory which says, "Well, the world seems to work this way, so we should adapt."

It makes a handy justification for ecocide. What is, by the inverse principle of the naturalistic fallacy being a fallacy, is not right, goes the logic. Therefore, we must fix it... according to the humanistic fallacy that says what we think is "right" and "right" has some bearing on the universe. It's amazing that with all the deconstructivists out there few of them have analyzed this issue with any clarity.