Fallacies are invalid logical arguments.
The invalid argument underlying the naturalistic fallacy is this -
Premise: A behavior is natural.
Conclusion: The behavior is good.
This is not my argument. My arguments are as follows -
P1. Everything that comes from our humanity is natural.
P2. Goodness and evilness come from our humanity.
C1. Goodness and evilness are natural.
P3. Evolutionary forces guide the definition of goodness.
P4. Evolutionary forces are pointing at and attempting to converge and supervene on optimal evolutionary game theory.
C2. The definition of goodness is pointing at and attempting to converge and supervene on optimal evolutionary game theory.
P5. Evolutionary forces are fallible due to random mutations.
P6. If evolutionary forces are fallible, then not all evolutionary results will successfully point at and attempting to converge and supervene on optimal evolutionary game theory.
C3. Not all evolutionary results will successfully point at and attempting to converge and supervene on optimal evolutionary game theory.
P7. Morality is an umbrella term that includes the set of all moralities, and instantiations of specific moralities.
P8. Each instance of a morality is an example of a type of strategy that can, in principle, be mind-independently measured against its ability to accomplish its goals.
C4. Morality has mind-independant measurability.
P9. Objectivity requires mind-independant measurability.
P10. [C4]. Morality has mind-independant measurability.
C5. Morality is objective