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

[Astoria]

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)

Yeah this sounds right. If it's something to do with morals then the 'it's natural' argument doesn't really work because animals don't understand morals. Some things are both about nature and morals so it gets a little confusing but most thingg fall closer to one or the other.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Right is wrong is defined by society. No argument about this subject carries any weight to those who want an answer to what is right and wrong, only what the majority finds right and wrong.

Case in point, homosexuality as thought of by some religious people opposed to homosexuality thought by a rational unbiased person.

EDIT: Please note that i don't think all Religious people are against homosexuality or tha all rational unbiased people are for it.

 

[Treblaine]

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...

Because people who are constantly pissed off with humans and only have a narrow idealised exposure to "nature", along with some other ideas, assume nature is some ideal that we have lost.

Also nature is so huge an varied you can shop around to find any "natural" activity to justify any human activity.

 

[Altanese]

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

This.

What, you want more? Well if you insist...

I try not to say "It's natural", but rather, "It's natural for humans." An omnivorous diet, polyandry, and homosexuality are all natural for us. Also natural for humans are building cities, like ants and bees make hills and hives, and using tools like the rest of the higher apes and other various animals.

 

[dementis]

We are animals, just becuase we are capable of cognitive thought doesn't make us excempt from the laws of nature of basic biology,we just control our basic instincts a little better because of our society.

 

[Sebenko]

The thing to remember here is, in the context of homosexuality, no-one in their right mind argues that "It's natural so it's good".

The "natural is good" arguement is just a counter to the regularly used "It's unnatural so it's bad" arguement. Whether being natural is good or not is irellevant- whoever you're arguing with has already decided that unnatural is bad, so the simplest opposition is to show that it is natural, not that natural is bad.

 

[orangeapples]

people who 'act like animals' and 'reject morality' are rebelling against the societal norms. I guess it isn't bad morally; just strange.

If you were raised in a society where eating your first born child was normal then that would be fine. However, I'm assuming you weren't raised in that society and you do not find eating your first born child acceptable.

it is all a matter of society's rules. Once upon a time it was socially accepted that black people were not as good as white people. Society changes and that is not the case anymore socially.

 

[Killertje]

If it is normal in nature (for humans) then it is normal (for humans). Whether we accept it in a community is a whole other question. Sure its "normal" for people to kill eachother once in a while, thats why we do it all the time (I'm not saying everyone is a murderer, but the human race has murderers and that is perfectly normal). That doesnt make it acceptable in society.

 

[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.

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.

Exactly - anything that exists does so because that is how it behaves in nature. Technological development is as much a part of the human species as opposable thumbs are, and we had it long before we could even be classified as Homo Sapiens.

 

[gigastrike]

People need to pay less attention to how things are done in nature and take the time to actually see how well something works.

 

[FalloutJack]

One part of me says that this explanation has the fatal flaw of referring to animals and not humans, who are the most bizarre creatures of all. Another part of me doesn't really care.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

It doesn't justify anything. Not saying that meat eating, polyandry, and homosexuality aren't justifiable, I personally don't have a problem with any of those things.

And what is natural anyway? There isn't really an objective definition of it. Calling something natural is implying that such a thing is supposed to happen, without force. The only reason we really call my things our species does 'unnatural' is because we are sentient beings, and thus we have the ability to perceive our actions as forceful. We destroy nature, and we consciously do it, for reasons that we can consciously realize. But nature can do the same, it just lacks the sentience behind it, it just is, and so are we. The difference is, we're aware of ourselves.

 

[hermes]

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

Exactly, natural doesn't inmediately means acceptable, since we have a moral code on top of it.

Personally, I have more problems with the argument when used in reverse. When trying to anthropomorphize animals and use it to pass judgement on human behaviour (you know, because "animals don't do wars"), which most of the times is just innacurate.