just an idea here - when we speak of virtues and vices -
i.e. - courage and cowardice
there is no distinction between natural and non-natural
qualities
a courageous act is an act - and a good act
but this is not what we say
we don't say -
x is A and x is G
it is a 'courageous act'
the report of such an act makes no distinction
no distinction between fact and value
such an act is a moral act
it really seems beside the point to analyze into act -
plus courage
such virtue predicates as 'is courageous' are peculiarly human
on the other hand you have natural predicates - that apply
to all natural things including humans
so we have n-predicates (natural predicates) and h-predicates
(human predicates)
the h-predicates are a class of n-predicates
so there is no question of the naturalistic fallacy
and I would say - to understand - the concept of a h-predicate -
you need to observe (behaviour) and reflect (think) -
the same applies to n-predicates
there is no gulf - only specialty
