Natural = Okay: A Form of Bigotry?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Natural = Okay: A Form of Bigotry? » Natural = Okay: A Form of Bigotry?

Natural = Okay: A Form of Bigotry?

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 327

Posted 04/17/09 - 08:21 AM: Subject: Natural = Okay: A Form of Bigotry?	#1
I am guessing the following arguments is no stranger to any of us here. "It is natural", "It is human nature" But my question is, what isn't? Given that the entire human is a natural phenomenon, including our brain and our neo cortex, is there ever such a thing as a "non natural" human action? Yet some people seem to be able break down certain trait and point at it as somehow more natural than others, often with a large undertone of Psychoanalysis and Social Darwinism, and inconsistent with the our modern observed data set (actual studies conducted on human behaviors). Under this also comes a morality call where natural makes something okay, and anything against their parameter of natural is stupid or immoral. Of course, most science community today has the consent that all actions are the combination of nature and nurture (and perhaps other random factors). There are no scientific claims that suggest the existence of any non natural human actions. Do you think the concept of Natural = Okay is a form of bigotry? Do you think there are really some things one person does that is more natural than what someone else does? Or is it simply a phantom of history that is plaguing our modern culture? Edited by 123savethewhales on 04/17/09 - 08:40 AM
Keep it simple.

xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 797

Posted 04/17/09 - 09:24 AM:	#2
"It is natural" is probably just filler for "the act under consideration is ok." Essentially, it is the is/ought problem in other terms. I happen to believe that people that argue "it is natural" don't even know what they are talking about. As you say, natural is everything that man is capable of doing. Therefore if anyone has done something, it is natural. What people are often driving at ("homosexuals are unnatural") is that they believe that nature has some underlying design/purpose/ultimate destination and that behaving in certain ways frustrates that design/purpose/ultimate destination. Because the person making the "natural" argument adopts beliefs such as "the purpose of any individual member of the species is either to continue its own genetic line or to facilitate the genetic line of other members of the species", it is easy to see the appeal of the "natural" argument. The appeal of the argument does not make it true. This argument is certainly used to support bigotry. "It is natural for me to protect my own genetic line, so I shouldn't be forced to hire someone outside of my family/tribe/race." "It is natural for women to be stay home raising children because they are evolutionarily programmed to be better at it, so they should not be allowed to work." You can take any physical trait, explain how it is "naturally" adapted to some purpose, and then relegate people possessing that trait to do that purpose and nothing more. Without touching on the absence of free will, I will leave you with this: people are natural beings, but how nature presently is does not mean either that nature should be that way or can't be otherwise.
Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.

klubbit
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 05, 2008

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 90

Posted 04/17/09 - 10:24 AM:	#3
I agree with xzJoel, "it's natural" usually just means "I find it acceptable," whether that's due to intuition or religious beliefs or something else. It sometimes refers to what's natural outside of humans. For example, someone might say that it's natural to eat meat because non-human animals do it. Or they might say that a product is natural because it doesn't contain man-made substances. There can also be a biological basis. For example, I could say that it's natural for me to satisfy my sexual urges, or I could say that it's natural for me to eat meat because my body can digest it. See the "appeal to nature" fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Wolfman
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Oakland, CA

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1107

Posted 04/17/09 - 11:50 AM:	#4
123savethewhales wrote: Do you think there are really some things one person does that is more natural than what someone else does? No. Individuals are predisposed to certain behaviors via internal factors, i.e., predispositions, biological variation, genetics, etc.. These factors interact with external factors, which we can refer to as the human condition, exhausting societal influences, individual experiences, and the like. It is not a question of whether an individual can be more “natural” than another, which is absurd; rather a question of how qualities which are already latent in the individual come to develop, and are further reinforced or diminished by external factors. In this respect, we can only refer to actions or behavior as being socially deviant, e.g., defecating on a city street, or aberrant in the human line, e.g., psychopathology.
"That which is done out of love is always beyond good and evil" - Nietzsche "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." - Aristotle "It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu "Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." - Kant

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.