The "it exists in nature and is thus normal/acceptable behavior" argument
- Thread starter Thunderhorse31
- Start date
Recommended Videos
this argument does not carry any weight, and i can prove it with just one example of something that happens in nature...
lone male lions often commit infanticide (killing babies) on another pride that is for whatever reason without its own alpha male, so as to rape the females and raise his OWN offspring.
you can bet your ass that this wouldnt be acceptable behavior if any human did it.
lone male lions often commit infanticide (killing babies) on another pride that is for whatever reason without its own alpha male, so as to rape the females and raise his OWN offspring.
you can bet your ass that this wouldnt be acceptable behavior if any human did it.
I'm pretty sure that it's a reactionary thing to all the whiney "Why isn't the world perfect, like it should be?" crap that gets flung around.
It's probably not practical to cite it constantly(even if there is more than a grain of truth in it), but it's useful as a means of counter-balancing the claims of those with their heads in the clouds, demanding a world that has no basis in reality.
It's probably not practical to cite it constantly(even if there is more than a grain of truth in it), but it's useful as a means of counter-balancing the claims of those with their heads in the clouds, demanding a world that has no basis in reality.
Holy crap, this is so misinformed I had to post. Chimps eat meat, they will often hunt and kill monkeys. Homosexuality is an aberrant behavior in apes due to lack of females to breed with, not choice. Chimps regularly use tools varying from stone axes to crack open nuts and fruits to sticks to gather ants and termites. Cannibalism is more often spiritual instead of linked to dietary concerns.ThisIsSnake said:
TBF, any argument can be justified by simply failing to consider implications outside of set parameters. This is one of the key problems with statistics and science in general, as any situation can be proven purely by controlling the environment to force a set result.
And animals...really do some nasty things (Dolphin Rape, Chimp Cannibalism, Drunken Elephant Hooligans) not because they're animals, but because they have the intelligence to understand the idea of power games and intoxicants.
Society itself requires the loss of some freedoms in order to facilitate protection from those that would enslave us. But it also allows different forms of Society (Communism, Capitalism, Republican, Democratics, Conservatism, Labour, Liberalism) to increase their hold, and thus their ulterior motive.
So...natural/unnatural can easily be used as labels for certain behaviour deemed pro/anti society, differing societies will see it in different ways. Enforcing certain behaviours is a necessary evil for continued survival, but criminalising behaviours is the corruption within that system.
TL;DR: Animals do bad shit as well. Humans need some rules to live together, but that doesn't mean you should shaft anyone. Because large societies need morals to survive above Despotism.
And animals...really do some nasty things (Dolphin Rape, Chimp Cannibalism, Drunken Elephant Hooligans) not because they're animals, but because they have the intelligence to understand the idea of power games and intoxicants.
Society itself requires the loss of some freedoms in order to facilitate protection from those that would enslave us. But it also allows different forms of Society (Communism, Capitalism, Republican, Democratics, Conservatism, Labour, Liberalism) to increase their hold, and thus their ulterior motive.
So...natural/unnatural can easily be used as labels for certain behaviour deemed pro/anti society, differing societies will see it in different ways. Enforcing certain behaviours is a necessary evil for continued survival, but criminalising behaviours is the corruption within that system.
TL;DR: Animals do bad shit as well. Humans need some rules to live together, but that doesn't mean you should shaft anyone. Because large societies need morals to survive above Despotism.
I've only really seen this argument used the other way around. As in, implying something is bad because it is unnatural. Then I see no issue with pointing out if that something occurs in nature or not.
Of course underlying all this is the issue of what the word 'natural' exactly entails...
In other words, useless.
Of course underlying all this is the issue of what the word 'natural' exactly entails...
In other words, useless.
I will agree with the OP and add that a behavior is not necessarily unacceptable simply because it is unnatural. The problem is that the word "natural" has positive connotations. It's pretty absurd given that the fact we live twice as long as we would in the wild is due to the artificiality around us, but there you go.
It doesn't really justify anything to me it along the same lines as well other people do blank which reall is ne explanation as to why the individual deems these behaviors or acts appropriate. Animals do a lot of stuff that any rational person would deem unacceptable like rape and murder and eating their own young humans have the ability to reason exercise it.
The word "natural" is, in my opinion, the last refuge of soda manufacturers who know damn well that their soda is very unhealthy indeed but still want to advertise it as healthy in their advertising.
Birds have wings. That doesn't mean I should too.
What I'm saying is that any other species is fundamentally different to us, otherwise they wouldn't be a different species. What applies to them does not apply to us in most cases.
What I'm saying is that any other species is fundamentally different to us, otherwise they wouldn't be a different species. What applies to them does not apply to us in most cases.
its not a valid arguement to me because what is normal or acceptable behaviour?
plus who cares if something is unnatural? should that stop you from doing it if you really want to?
plus who cares if something is unnatural? should that stop you from doing it if you really want to?
It's a complex concept that's abused by people simply looking for a quick excuse to their behaviour. It touches on some much deeper philosophical arguments, but when used in the context of your post, it is just their way of saying "LALALALA, whatever, I'm not listening!
OK this should be fun.killcannon71 said:
1. I honestly didn't notice I wrote they didn't eat meat. I was meant to put they don't eat their young.
2. The Bonobo has a large amount of bisexuality in the species.
3. I mentioned that there was tool use, I was unsure how much tool use there was so I tried to be conservative.
4. I wasn't trying to imply that about cannibalism, the starvation thing was meant to be about meat in general, it was ordered badly.
The cane toad is known for having sex with dead animals for no reason, that being said we assume that humans should be allowed to have sex with dead bodies because a certain toad does it?
I sure hope not.
My point is we shouldn't use the whole "that's Natural/Unnatural so we should/Shouldn't do it" argument, it doesn't pertain much thought. not to sound like a broken record but there's a lot of things we do today that's considered unnatural, and yet we still do it because it helps our society flourish.
besides if we only did what was natural, life would be kinda boring.
I sure hope not.
My point is we shouldn't use the whole "that's Natural/Unnatural so we should/Shouldn't do it" argument, it doesn't pertain much thought. not to sound like a broken record but there's a lot of things we do today that's considered unnatural, and yet we still do it because it helps our society flourish.
besides if we only did what was natural, life would be kinda boring.
I get where you are coming from. I use the arguement all the time. Yes there is hypocrisy in its use, however, observing nature does allow us to find out WHY humans behave like they do.Thunderhorse31 said:
Oh and FYI, some animals do mate for life and are monogamous:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Monogamy-is-an-Oddity-42006.shtml
what about the opposite?
driving cars and wearing clothes and cooking meals does not happen in nature. therefore, it is morally wrong to drive cars and wear clothes and cook meals.
the 'foo exists in nature, therefore foo is morally acceptable' is simply a fallacy.
same with 'foo does not happen in nature, therefore foo is morally wrong'
what is the definition of 'natural' to begin with?
driving cars and wearing clothes and cooking meals does not happen in nature. therefore, it is morally wrong to drive cars and wear clothes and cook meals.
the 'foo exists in nature, therefore foo is morally acceptable' is simply a fallacy.
same with 'foo does not happen in nature, therefore foo is morally wrong'
what is the definition of 'natural' to begin with?