Steelmanning some (so-called) logical fallacies
How about the naturalistic fallacy? I bet all morality have to be based on axioms. These will be functions of the evolved organism in question, and its mileu. So, the utilitarian will agree that survive-morality is preferred in a survive-environment. Better if one eats all and survives, than if two is starving. (Allthough the utilitarian might want to shift the equilibrium to thrive-mode...) So, what is dictates whats ough. Right?
And the conjuction-fallacy fallacy, could that be posed as ”to much ockham” but not enough of other explanatory values? (See https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.02359.pdf )