It was the basis for social Darwinism, the belief that helping the poor and sick would get in the way of evolution, which depends on the survival of the fittest.
Today, biologists denounce the naturalistic fallacy because they want to describe the natural world honestly, without people deriving morals about how we ought to behave (as in: If birds and beasts engage in adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, it must be OK)."
"[1] Sometimes basic scientific findings or interpretations are rejected, or their discovery, development or acknowledgement is opposed or restricted, through assertions of potential misuse or harmfulness.
In the late 1970s, Bernard Davis, in response to growing political and public calls to restrict basic research (versus applied research), amid criticisms of dangerous knowledge (versus dangerous applications), applied the term moralistic fallacy toward its present use.
Scientific theories with abundant research support can be discarded in public debates, where general agreement is central but can be utterly false.
[6] Davis had indicated that greater and clearer familiarization with the uses and limitations of science can more effectively prevent knowledge misuse or harm.