Final answer:
Virtue ethicists, following a philosophical approach that includes Aristotle's and Philippa Foot's theories, are not necessarily committed to the naturalistic fallacy. They may use an understanding of human nature to guide moral reasoning without simplistically deriving moral oughts from natural is statements.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question addresses whether virtue ethicists are necessarily committed to the naturalistic fallacy, particularly if they are naturalists themselves. The naturalistic fallacy is the error of deriving values, what we ought to do, from facts, what is the case, something highlighted by G. E. Moore and related to Hume's is-ought problem. Virtue ethics, an approach rooted in Aristotle's and later Philippa Foot's works, suggests that moral values are connected to human flourishing and the fulfillment of one's nature or telos. This could imply an overlap with ethical naturalism, which ties moral goodness to the natural facts about human behavior and flourishing.
However, virtue ethics does not necessarily commit to the naturalistic fallacy if it does not simply derive ought from is without due philosophical justification. Instead, it may argue that understanding our nature can guide us towards what we 'ought' to do to live well, while maintaining a critical stance on the derivation of moral standards directly from nature.