Abstract The phrase 'naturalistic fallacy' smacks of a violation of any rules of logic. This becomes more worrisome especially fresh students of philosophy and the lay reader when it is observed that the context of the problem is ethics not logic. Thus, the first question is "how tenable is the phraseology within an ethical discourse?" Even with some permissible interplay of the rules of logic, "how justified is the phraseology in that context?" This paper is not only an attempt at afore questioned, but also an appraisal of the relevance of the phrase towards the resolution of the debate on the ends of moral judgment.