The Argument from (or appeal to) Nature

[Miller0700]

From all the murder/rape apologists, to racial supremacists, homophobes, misogynists, and domestic abusers I've happen to come across, read or watch have used or mentioned this argument as a defense for their actions.

Here's a brief description of the argument:

Quote:An appeal to nature is an argument based on the assumption that natural things are inherently good or of higher value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature


And some questions I would like answered because I'm curious enough to know what other people think:


* Any other person would decry them as barbaric, but do we simply stop there? If so why? If not, why not?

* Is anyone else who isn't one of the above but who still uses the argument to defend whatever action they held just as bad?

* Are our present rules, morals, beliefs and our constrictive environment simply delaying the inevitable? Delaying that...inner person in all of us dying to escape?

* Have we blinded ourselves from our past or have we matured enough to overlook it?

* Isn't the act of sex (and a few other things) natural? Are people who disregard this argument but enact this activity hypocrites?

* Is it the use of this argument and the actions stemming from it born from a abused life with nothing to lose or a bored one looking to escape? Both?

* Why is this argument so hard to shake if at all?

* Is the denial or disregard of this argument born from a intelligent or wealthy environment? Both? Neither?

* Are people who act on impulse and desire and use this argument to defend it all happier than those who restrict themselves from it?





What do you think?

[Potato]

you can't justify those actions with appeal to nature or anything else, because they obviously can't result in anything but negative outcomes.

An argument that is actually worth considering is that natural foods are healthier because humans have had to deal with those for most of its history, therefore we would have only adapted to foods found in our natural environments, so genetically engineered salmons and other things are unheathly. i disagree with that because everyone who isn't from the american continents only began to have access to food crops from there (which include chocolate, corn, tomatoes, etc) a few hundred years ago and they have since become a major part of the diet, and trade has increased in general, and we're doing fine, so i think that shows how flexible our diet can be.
if they want to simply say that everything man made is unnatural and unhealthy, cooked food is man-made, animals don't eat that in the wild, so by that logic raw bacon should be healthier

[SoulRiser]

Human brains are natural, therefore using them is natural, therefore if a person decides to do something other than what people think is "natural", then their decision is also natural and isn't actually against nature at all.

So, along similar lines, you could also say that synthetic things are also natural because they were made by humans, which are naturally occuring, and made as a result of their naturally occurring intelligence and science and whatnot.

Some naturally occurring plants are poisonous and will kill you... some synthetic things (like medicine) can heal you... so I don't think this "nature is always better" argument is worth a whole lot.

Sure, in general, non-processed foods are probably healthier than processed stuff, but that doesn't mean that everything humans have tinkered with has made it worse. I can understand the argument that we're genetically less able to digest certain things, and that's easy to fix, just don't eat those things if you personally can't digest it well. But some people can adapt better than others... I can eat just about anything without any ill effects, but my roommate is very sensitive to a whole range of foods.

But since this isn't really about food...

Okay, animals kill and eat each other on a regular basis, and this is natural. They don't really have a choice though, if they don't do that, they will most likely die (survival of the fittest and all that). We humans however have the luxury of choice... most of the time, we don't need to murder, kill or rape anyone. So why do it then? I'm guessing they couldn't think of a better reason, so they were all like "well animals do it, so it must be natural, and that makes it okay... right?"

[Miller0700]

It's a warped view, imo.

[Mouser]

I come across this arguement frequently whilst debating social Darwinists. Those that use the argument are committing the naturalistic fallacy.