**There is no reason to make the jump from observing nature to using it as the basis for moral judgments.** - Appealing to facts about nature to make conclusions about what actions are moral or immoral uses the is-ought fallacy or as G.E Moore calls it the [‘naturalistic fallacy’](https://www.britannica.com/topic/naturalistic-fallacy). Just because things in nature are a certain way does not mean that this says anything about how we should behave. - Many moral ‘answers’ that’ nature would give us would not be widely accepted. For example, [Darwin’s theory of evolution](https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/theory-evolution/), which says that ‘survival of the fittest’ results in evolution, would suggest that we have no responsibility to look after weaker members of society, an idea which many people would object to very deeply. - The main conclusion, therefore is that we can intuit morals (as G.E. Moore argues in [‘Intuitionism’](https://www.britannica.com/topic/intuitionism-ethics)) or that we can find them out another way. Either way, moral properties can’t be found in nature.

**Moral properties may be looked at from a multitude of lenses, some of which could be considered more "naturally occurring" than others.** - Robert M. Sapolsky's book _[Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst](https://bookshop.org/books/behave-the-biology-of-humans-at-our-best-and-worst/9780143110910)_ examines each of our actions from a different standpoint in time. In this light, moral properties are wrapped up in the ways we act: Kindness, honesty, lying, compassion, killing, refraining, etc. The "best" and "worst" of these moral actions acquire their feeling of, to us, being "best" or "worst" (i.e., their moral properties) in both ways natural or unnatural, depending. - When a behavior occurs, it can be analyzed first within the most recent minutes and seconds leading up to it: How we respond to immediate stimuli. This can include neurobiological, hormonal, and chemical causes. - The behavior can also be analyzed from more zoomed out perspectives: A chain of causes going all the way back to our evolutionary roots. The causes here can relate to environmental and historical factors, as well as genetic factors. - Historical and cultural factors lend a less "naturally occurring" air to moral property selection. Genetic and environmental factors that influence our behaviors from across a long line of causes extending back to our distant past, along with neurobiological, hormonal, and chemical causes in the moment of and moments leading up to the occurrence of an action, can be more "naturally occurring"---though even in these "natural" cases of moral property selection, the hormonal, neurobiological, chemical, etc. causes of the proximate moment of an action are causes that could be considered less "natural" cases of moral property selection: If we allow for free will of choice to exist, then the moments in which we deliberate on an action will have some component of unnaturally-selected moral creation to them, even if our genetics and hormones, etc. are narrowing the pool of choices from which that freeness of will can select. - (That is, our moral properties will in the case of enough free will be chosen less naturally and with less constraint from the host of "natural" genetic, hormonal, chemical, etc. causes. These natural causes will still narrow down the range of choices we have to choose from in a moment of moral action, but we may have some control over our choice among those naturally selected options, making moral properties still somewhat unnatural, if we have more of a say over their creation and initiation into the world).