The "it exists in nature and is thus normal/acceptable behavior" argument

[Thunderhorse31]

You know the one I'm talking about. The one that is used to justify everything from eating meat to polyandry to homosexuality. The "well animals do it, so it's normal" approach to decision-making and human behavior.

My question to you is, do you think this argument really carries weight? If so, why is it used so inconsistently? I see all the time people make the point that "animals aren't monogamous, so I don't have to be," but never that "animals eat their young, so I can too." Is this really a sound argument to be used in attempting to justify behavior?

You can guess where I come down on the idea, but I know my fellow Escapists have a variety of ideas...

 

[Lukeje]

It's an argument that such things aren't unnatural, not that they are acceptable in human society.

 

[Febel]

babies don't have enough meat on them to really warrant a meal. And any argument may be sound provided it's logical. It can apply in some cases, and not in others it does not have to be universal.

 

[CarlMin]

Good question.

It depends on which context you use the argument. If you want to prove something is natural (which you often have to do when you discuss sexuality) then you can always bring up the fact that it's common in nature.

However, if we are discussing morals, the argument doesn't work. For example, just because animals kill and eat each other, doesn't mean we have to. (Besides, circa 20 people get killed by cows every year. We slaughter millions of them every year. So that argument would fall to the ground relatively fast anyway)

 

[Ambi]

It's mostly thought of as the <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy>naturalistic fallacy.

It depends how it's used. It can be used as a rule of thumb with some things (food, healthy psychology) because 'natural' can mean 'syncronised with our natural bodies/selves'. One can't just say "it's natural and therefore justified" because natural=good is not a solid principle because there are exceptions. 'Natural' doesn't really have a concrete definition anyway.

 

[Sharpiez]

Yeah natural=good when I'm thinking about foods to eat and supplements to take or anything like that. Like I'll ingest vitamins in amounts that I should be getting naturally but I won't take some crazy steroid bodybuilding shit just to spend a few more hours at the gym.

However the whole nature thing doesn't work primarily because we evolved to become the dominant species on this planet by learning to do things that aren't "natural."

 

[Spygon]

Well as most people have said it really down to context.But the thing that scares me more is its legal or approved by society that must mean it is good. People that argue things are right just because today society says it is okay really worry me.

As racism and slavery were okay with society years ago that does not mean people thought wait a monment something is really wrong here and try to change it

 

[b3nn3tt]

I'd actually never thought of it that way before. But nor have I ever used it as an argument, so I guess that's ok.

I don't think that it necessarily negates the point being made, but I think that you'd have to be careful how you use the argument, and it shouldn't be your only one. I think that if you use it in conjunction with other arguments it's ok, because you're not basing your whole argument on a single, admittedly flawed, point.

 

[Kahunaburger]

The way humans behave is how humans naturally behave, just like the way dogs behave is how dogs naturally behave. We tend to forget that we're part of nature for some reason.

 

[Sharpiez]

The way humans behave is how humans naturally behave, just like the way dogs behave is how dogs naturally behave. We tend to forget that we're part of nature for some reason.

Yeah but dogs have been domesticated. Humans have technology. If we go by this definition everything is natural by virtue of existing in our universe.

 

[Evaheist666]

Kant would disagree but that was about 300 years ago although I think his beliefs are still relevant to great extent.

There are simply too many factors which come into play if you want to explain why morals and ideals have been degraded so much as the human civilization moved past the Renaissance era. Sociologists would have a field day researching/explaining that.

 

[Dastardly]

It's an argument that such things aren't unnatural, not that they are acceptable in human society.

Though the problem often comes when people using this argument intend it to mean, "Because this isn't unnatural, it should be acceptable in society." That's where the common problem, and the inconsistency mentioned in the OP, stem from.

You know the one I'm talking about. The one that is used to justify everything from eating meat to polyandry to homosexuality. The "well animals do it, so it's normal" approach to decision-making and human behavior.

My question to you is, do you think this argument really carries weight? If so, why is it used so inconsistently? I see all the time people make the point that "animals aren't monogamous, so I don't have to be," but never that "animals eat their young, so I can too." Is this really a sound argument to be used in attempting to justify behavior?

You can guess where I come down on the idea, but I know my fellow Escapists have a variety of ideas...

To this sort of argument, we could also say:

- Cancer happens in nature
- Fighting to the death over territory or mates happens in nature
- Rape happens in nature

The idea that something "occurs in nature" doesn't mean it is beneficial in any way. Also, it doesn't mean it is mandated by nature.

Rape is common in many species. Are we going to assert that they are genetically programmed to rape? By extension, could that mean that some humans are genetically programmed to rape? Or, being sensible organisms, can we reason that perhaps it is a harmful outgrowth of a "natural" thought process--"I want this, so I take it"--that should be controlled, and not allowed to extend that far?

As a more extended example, a woman is fertile and capable of bearing children by the age of 12. In nature, most animals are thought of as "adult" when they reach sexual maturity... so wouldn't it be "natural" for men to mate with girls of breeding age? Even though Western society used to think so, today the idea of a grown man "mating" with a 12-year-old girl is (rightfully, in my opinion) regarded as disgusting.

Lots of behaviors happen in nature because animals often act on the most basic desires and apply them to all situations. The most basic desire is "Want it, Take it. Now!" And while that desire may be genetically influenced, the many behaviors fueled by that desire are not all genetically mandated. As humans, we have the ability to recognize and differentiate between these behaviors and put aside that impulsive desire.

 

[squeekenator]

Nature's not very nice, and morals don't exist outside of our sheltered human societies. So no, in the context of 'is this moral' it's absolutely not an excuse. If anything, a certain behaviour being natural should make us distrust it.

 

[Lukeje]

It's an argument that such things aren't unnatural, not that they are acceptable in human society.

Though the problem often comes when people using this argument intend it to mean, "Because this isn't unnatural, it should be acceptable in society." That's where the common problem, and the inconsistency mentioned in the OP, stem from.

I'm well aware of that; I thought it was implied?

 

[Grathius22]

Well, when people use this argument I like to respond with, "Animals eat their own shit too, are we supposed to do that because it's natural?"

 

[ThisIsSnake]

It's a mistake to compare humans to child eating animals, we're apes so you compare humans to other apes like our evolutionary cousins the chimpanzees. Chimps don't their young, exhibit homosexuality and bisexuality and can be similarly as aggressive as humans.

Humans were largely as advanced as chimpanzees for a long time (though we took fur from animals to survive), what really boosted us above everything else was the emergence of speech (and later writing) which allowed us to accumulate precise knowledge through generations.

Morality is very subjective

Slavery is not automatically bad - Animals we have domesticated are ensured a plentiful supply of food, shelter and a practically painless death.

A human example would be Posca in the HBO/BBC series Rome (granted he is fictional and romanticised) who enjoys a life above the standard of most Romans in his position as Julius Caeser's advisor.

If we gave up eating meat then the loss of a meat industry would cost a lot of jobs, removing a decent chunk of economies. Meat is a good source of nutrients that are hard to find elsewhere, animals are going to die anyway so the meat might be put to good use. In third world countries large amounts of people are starving, telling them eating meat is bad would be a foolish repeat of telling them condoms are bad. Eating human meat poses large risks (if you are human) since there is a much larger danger of disease from eating human flesh (such as Kuru in Papa New Guinea).

Monogamy is a tricky one, because due to advancements in medicine etc we live much longer than we used to. At least in the West we have a romanticised notion of true love (this could be based on instinctual monogamy) yet we have high divorce rates, adultery isn't uncommon and we don't typically stay with our first sexual partner forever.

 

[Dastardly]

It's an argument that such things aren't unnatural, not that they are acceptable in human society.

Though the problem often comes when people using this argument intend it to mean, "Because this isn't unnatural, it should be acceptable in society." That's where the common problem, and the inconsistency mentioned in the OP, stem from.

I'm well aware of that; I thought it was implied?

Ah, I see. It actually sounded like you were saying the OP's assessment of the problem was false, and that you were correcting him. I was simply clarifying what I felt was implied in that post--the problem being that far too many people are taking the argument to the point of what is/should be socially acceptable.

Sorry for any mix-up there.

 

[Biosophilogical]

You know the one I'm talking about. The one that is used to justify everything from eating meat to polyandry to homosexuality. The "well animals do it, so it's normal" approach to decision-making and human behavior.

My question to you is, do you think this argument really carries weight? If so, why is it used so inconsistently? I see all the time people make the point that "animals aren't monogamous, so I don't have to be," but never that "animals eat their young, so I can too." Is this really a sound argument to be used in attempting to justify behavior?

You can guess where I come down on the idea, but I know my fellow Escapists have a variety of ideas...

Well, in some cases, an argument someone uses against something (*cough* homosexuality *cough*) is that it is unnatural. The 'natural' argument isn't saying something is right; it is not a positive reinforcement[footnote]It doesn't add to your case[/footnote], it is a negative reinforcement[footnote]It reinforces your side, but it does so through reduction of the opposition, rather than addition of the support[/footnote].

So saying something is 'natural' is not saying you should do something, it is just saying that you shouldn't not do it for the 'unnatural' reason. There may be other reasons to not do something (like baby-eating, or murder, or theivery, or polygamy or whatever you happen to be arguing), and it isn't rebutting any other reason, it is just saying that a 'natural vs unnatural' argument holds no weight as a method of argument-reduction (essentially someone has added an extraneous argument, so you are trying to bring the debate down to the relevant factors).

If someone decides to use a 'natural' argument for support, then that is stupid. It is like using evolution, which is an is statement, to support a should point.

 

[Bon_Clay]

Unless there really is a God who has decided upon rules we should all follow as humans, then all morals are just shit we make up for our own benefit and do not have any innate truth or justification. That's all there really is to it.