Abstract

The first sections of the paper deal with the notion of a dialogue and some basic dialogic modalities. The critical or rational modality is highlighted as typical of philosophical argumentation. The following sections deal with a widespread phenomenon in current philosophical controversies: to charge the dialogic counterpart with the commission of a philosophical fallacy. The Naturalistic Fallacy is taken as the most famous example of that sort of strategy. Its structure and aims are analized, and it is concluded that, leaving aside other sorts of critical points, the accusation violates the canons of the rational dialogue