"Natural" Arguing Human Ethics

[DarkHalo003]

For those of you who've been to the thread below where this debate occurred, or those of you who are intrigued in this kind of debate, what are your arguments for whether or not a natural behavior is acceptable simply because it's natural in proper human ethics.

Origin of debate: http://www.modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?24529-The-right-question.

Starting question:

If behaviors are natural, does that mean they are okay because the argument is that they are natural? For instance, rape and murder have been seen as natural behaviors across many animal species alongside heterosexual and homosexual behavior. The point isn't whether or not rape/murder is acceptable (because most of us can agree it isn't), but rather recently someone made the argument that homosexuality is okay because it's natural. What I want to point out is that by the logic that X-behavior is ethically alright because it's natural, wouldn't that same logic state that rape and murder are also acceptable because they're natural? In other words, I want people to think on a better, more thoughtful manner of explanation than just calling someone "ignorant" or stating something is acceptable because it's "natural." The same can be said for someone blaming anything on "human nature," which effectively can go in many different directions.

Discuss

[thehoodedsmack]

Everything which you have, will, or can perceive is governed by the physical interactions of elements within our universe. Your brain is a chemical soup experiencing a non-stop show of complex mathematics. Even theoretical entities outside our universe are expected to be governed by identical, if not similar, natural constraints. Because something breaks the norm, or is perceived by an individual as being strange, offensive, or "unnatural" does not make it so.

End of debate.

Really, though, you're going to have to be more specific, otherwise arguing the merits of a flawed definition will get us nowhere.

[Gwunty]

For those of you who've been to the thread below where this debate occurred, or those of you who are intrigued in this kind of debate, what are your arguments for whether or not a scenario/attribute can be unnatural or if everything is natural.

Origin of debate: http://www.modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?24529-The-right-question.


It can be simply said since we ourselves are formed by nature, therefore our habits are natural. However not many people will accept this for the following reason.

When it comes to arguments over the implied definitions of a word, unfortunately no one answer can be given that can be regarded as correct to the complete extension of the word correct, not because the claim itself is flawed but that the word "nature" (and as a result natural) implies with it, a social dogma. That is to say, due to the relativity of the word "natural" (natural meaning existing in or formed by nature), that a persons conditioned and preconceived philosophical presuppositions when it comes to nature, that have been placed and influenced by their societies dogma on nature, will always dominate and therefore influence their definition.

"All things are subject to interpretation, whichever interpretation prevails is a function of power, not truth"
- Friedrich Nietzsche

[DarkHalo003]

It can be simply said since we ourselves are formed by nature, therefore our habits are natural. However not many people will accept this for the following reason.

When it comes to arguments over the implied definitions of a word, unfortunately no one answer can be given that can be regarded as correct to the complete extension of the word correct, not because the claim itself is flawed but that the word "nature" (and as a result natural) implies with it, a social dogma. That is to say, due to the relativity of the word "natural" (natural meaning existing in or formed by nature), that a persons conditioned and preconceived philosophical presuppositions when it comes to nature, that have been placed and influenced by their societies dogma on nature, will always dominate and therefore influence their definition.


Ah, I'm glad you responded to this with such a good interpretation. In other words, nature does not have a static definition, but many different manifestations based on the situation. Similarly, human nature is not static and has many aspects. The best way one could even remotely sum up human nature without being in a revolving door would be the actions humanity take in order to propel itself forward. Even then, humans fall and remain stagnant despite their actions.

Still I want to reiterate my point for this thread in the particular scenario regarding the link: just because something is natural and some natural things are okay, does not mean everything that is natural is okay, thus stating something is okay because it's natural is not a sufficient argument.

@Smack: I parry your argument simply because chemicals do not explain meaning once higher levels of thinking are obtained. You're trying to answer a trillion questions and philosophies regarding existence and the mind with one answer, when in you have only answered a handful at best. Just because you found out how a clock works doesn't mean you've undermined the meaning of time.

[thehoodedsmack]

I don't intend to "explain meaning", I'm telling you how shit flies in the physical universe. Natural cause = natural. Done and done. I'm also not trying to answer any questions about existence. That we exist is all we have. Any supernatural (that is, outside our universe, and unnatural in the literal sense) cause that led to it can't be measured, so I don't spend too much time on it.

Furthermore, you have no right to "deny" my argument, since it is irrefutable scientific truth. I'd reword your statement, lest you lose all credibility.

But I find it interesting what you said here:

just because something is natural and some natural things are okay, does not mean everything that is natural is okay, thus stating something is okay because it's natural is not a sufficient argument.

You're basing your entire position on "what is okay", which is completely subjective. The entire concept of "human nature" is subjective, and shouldn't be taken seriously as an argument. Using the same basis of the quote above, I could say that stating something is "not okay" because it's "unnatural" is not a sufficient argument. It's the same circular, discreditable logic.

[thehoodedsmack]

I'd also like to point out that Gwunty's post does not add fuel to your argument, as he's stating as well that the notion of "human nature" is based upon societal variables, not that it's "not static, and has many aspects." He's saying that people's backgrounds dominate their feelings toward the concept of human nature, and that that is a bad thing which hinders people's mental clarity, just as you are demonstrating.

[n00b1n8R]

Rape and Murder are natural behaviours, but that doesn't make them morally right.
Homosexuality on the other hand can not hurt anybody physically or emitionally (unless daddy gets sad when he finds out his son sucks dicks) and so is morally acceptible. Hell, it makes two people happy who otherwise may not have been (were it not seen as acceptible) so it makes the world a nicer place :)

[Bodzilla]

For those of you who've been to the thread below where this debate occurred, or those of you who are intrigued in this kind of debate, what are your arguments for whether or not a scenario/attribute can be unnatural or if all behaviors are natural.

Origin of debate: http://www.modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?24529-The-right-question.

Starting question:

If behaviors are natural, does that mean they are okay because the argument is that they are natural? For instance, rape and murder have been seen as natural behaviors across many animal species. Homosexual behavior is also in the same situation. The argument isn't whether or not rape/murder is acceptable (because most of us can agree it isn't), but if the statement that homosexual behavior is alright simply because it's natural is a staple for an argument, wouldn't that mean rape/murder are okay by that logic? In other words, I want to point out the flaw in an argument claiming that homosexual behavior is okay simply because it's natural.

you've shifted the goal posts YET AGAIN,
big surprise.
you guys claimed it wasn't natural, when it was.
you then make the comparison (one of the stupidest ones i've ever seen) that rape and murder also occur in nature.

but i'll do you one better, if you want to make frivolous points with no context or purpose heres a dozey for you.
Love, compassion, trust and friendships are found in nature.
they're also found in homosexual relationships.

clearly with deductive reasoning we can assume that relationships that are homosexual in nature have these characteristics, therefore they're better then heterosexual relationships which contain rape and murder.

[thehoodedsmack]

Just pointing out that morals are subjective as well, without condemning or condoning rape, murder, etc.

[Timo]

Just because something is immoral doesn't make it unnatural. If homosexuality doesn't fit with your moral compass that's your own opinion, but just because you don't think it's ok doesn't make it unnatural.

[Gwunty]

Rape and Murder are natural behaviours, but that doesn't make them morally right.

*sigh*
Morality is a human construct that varies throughout societies and cultures. What you may not find morally acceptable (such as you suggested, rape and murder) is not only accepted in certain cultures, but is the zenith of their "good".


EDIT: Darkhalo, it seems to me that you do not lack cognitive aptitude, but instead you are simply put, ignorant on concepts which dwell on philosophy and the constructs of human society, if I may, I would like to recommend a book to you that can allow you to understand this in a easier fashion. The Genealogy of Morals, by Freidrich Nietzsche, its a very good read.

[TVTyrant]

Do we HAVE to have a thread about this?

Natural means occurs in nature. There ya go you cockholes.

[DarkHalo003]

*sigh*
Morality is a human construct that varies throughout societies and cultures. What you may not find morally acceptable (such as you suggested, rape and murder) is not only accepted in certain cultures, but is the zenith of their "good".


EDIT: Darkhalo, it seems to me that you do not lack cognitive aptitude, but instead you are simply put, ignorant on concepts which dwell on philosophy and the constructs of human society, if I may, I would like to recommend a book to you that can allow you to understand this in a easier fashion. The Genealogy of Morals, by Freidrich Nietzsche, its a very good read.
I'm not ignorant at all. In fact, I think most people here are completely missing the point of my comments and this thread, thus leading them to cause a shit storm over nothing. I never said I didn't know what nature is. Hell, this argument has very little about the actual definition and more about how people use it to support their argument when using it that way is faulty logic. Morality maybe a human construct, but if it didn't exist then rape and murder would be relatively rampant and thus form a degenerative society, so it directly applies in an argument where people are saying it's okay if it's natural.

But thanks for the recommendation Gwunty. I'm not sure if I'll have time in the near future, but I'll definitely ask some very knowledgeable people who would probably be able to lecture me on it some more.

@Smack: My bad, I thought you were turning this into some other sort of debate. I edited my word from "deny" to "parry" (i guess?) so that it's more that I'm presenting another side than to deny what many consider facts. However, I should perhaps edit the topic as well to feature Ethics and Morality as that's generally one of the realms I was aiming at. Sorry if I wasn't clear before. I was kind of scatter brained (not surprising) during the time I made the topic. I didn't think my argument was fueled by Gwunty's though and I'm positive I'm being fairly neutral here (at least, once the topic is changed to feature morality and ethics). However, you and Gwunty are right. I'm sorry if I seem so incredibly limited or "ignorant." I'm really not. It's just making sure every door is closed before I leave is kind of difficult when simply trying to start a debate.

@n00b: I agree, which is why I posted this topic that apparently isn't getting across the debate I wanted it to. Lol.

@Bod: You clearly aren't up to speed and have misinterpreted a lot. Big surprise. I never claimed it was natural or unnatural at all. That's not even what this topic is about. My topic is about a logical fallacy in someone saying that anything is morally okay as long as its natural. I want to correct this and say that just because it's found in nature doesn't mean it's morally acceptable in most modern societies. I never said there was anything wrong with homosexual behavior and I never compared its morality to that of rape or murder in society. I am saying that something acceptable like homosexuality isn't acceptable and shouldn't acceptable because it's natural, but because it's two individuals finding love for each other. In other words, you started at natural feelings (which many consider chemical triggers in the brain) and created meaning called love. This applies for a lot of people, not just homosexuals or heterosexuals. Have I explained this enough to you?

@Timo: I never said it didn't fit within my moral compass. I've stated several times I support gay marriage. Please look over the point of my topic again.

In reality, my topic is about properly using subtext and syntax versus how not to. Oh the irony considering I can't even do that myself.

[jcap]

There's been a lot of research on this. Yes, there is a link between genetics and someone's tendency to commit violent offenses such as beatings or murder. However, it's expected that about 1/3 of the global population contains this specific genetic trait. Is everyone who has the gene violent? No, most people live perfectly normal lives, and they wouldn't know they had the trait unless they were tested. In this case, there is apparent causation; however, not everyone with the trait will be violent. Therefore, being genetically predespositioned to a certain type of behavior does not determine your behavior.

The same can be said for alcoholics. It's said that children of alcoholic mothers are predispositioned to be alcoholics themselves. However, you won't become an alcoholic unless you intentionally abuse the drug.

This is the fault in the logic that excuses behavior due to genetics.

[Bodzilla]

I support Gay Marriage. Natural is from nature, no fucking duh. My argument was about its use in an argument of ethics when someone saying natural is morally okay. Now can we get over this shit fest?
no one said that natural was an automatic ok.

what we said was that it was illegitimate to claim it was unnatural and therefore not morally acceptable.
see the difference?
i'll quote myself here

[rossmum]

does it occur in nature? yes? it's natural.

there is no such fucking thing as 'unnatural' unless you're departing off into the realm of fantasy. it does not exist, because all things we can observe in the universe happen according to nature.

[DarkHalo003]

does it occur in nature? yes? it's natural.

there is no such fucking thing as 'unnatural' unless you're departing off into the realm of fantasy. it does not exist, because all things we can observe in the universe happen according to nature.
So by your definition, machines and upper-tier technology are all natural? What about gene splicing?

[rossmum]

they were created by humans according to the progression of human knowledge and development, so while they are artificial (not the same as unnatural!) constructs i would say they are natural in origin. people like to sling the word 'natural' around like it somehow signifies something not done by humans, or something predictable, while 'unnatural' means things that were created or don't follow that particular person's beliefs. the true definition of unnatural is "contrary to the laws of nature". is a car contrary to the laws of nature? no, it is subject to established laws of physics, chemistry, and so on. is gene splicing contrary to the laws of nature? no, it adheres to the established way in which biological systems operate.

stop abusing words and broadening their meanings to the point of vague worthlessness.

[jcap]

There's been a lot of research on this. Yes, there is a link between genetics and someone's tendency to commit violent offenses such as beatings or murder. However, it's expected that about 1/3 of the global population contains this specific genetic trait. Is everyone who has the gene violent? No, most people live perfectly normal lives, and they wouldn't know they had the trait unless they were tested. In this case, there is apparent causation; however, not everyone with the trait will be violent. Therefore, being genetically predespositioned to a certain type of behavior does not determine your behavior.

The same can be said for alcoholics. It's said that children of alcoholic mothers are predispositioned to be alcoholics themselves. However, you won't become an alcoholic unless you intentionally abuse the drug.

This is the fault in the logic that excuses behavior due to genetics.
/thread

[Rainbow Dash]

There's been a lot of research on this. Yes, there is a link between genetics and someone's tendency to commit violent offenses such as beatings or murder. However, it's expected that about 1/3 of the global population contains this specific genetic trait. Is everyone who has the gene violent? No, most people live perfectly normal lives, and they wouldn't know they had the trait unless they were tested. In this case, there is apparent causation; however, not everyone with the trait will be violent. Therefore, being genetically predespositioned to a certain type of behavior does not determine your behavior.

The same can be said for alcoholics. It's said that children of alcoholic mothers are predispositioned to be alcoholics themselves. However, you won't become an alcoholic unless you intentionally abuse the drug.

This is the fault in the logic that excuses behavior due to genetics.

36HquPzdxf4

[DarkHalo003]

they were created by humans according to the progression of human knowledge and development, so while they are artificial (not the same as unnatural!) constructs i would say they are natural in origin. people like to sling the word 'natural' around like it somehow signifies something not done by humans, or something predictable, while 'unnatural' means things that were created or don't follow that particular person's beliefs. the true definition of unnatural is "contrary to the laws of nature". is a car contrary to the laws of nature? no, it is subject to established laws of physics, chemistry, and so on. is gene splicing contrary to the laws of nature? no, it adheres to the established way in which biological systems operate.

stop abusing words and broadening their meanings to the point of vague worthlessness.
Ah, that makes plenty of sense. Thanks for your contribution. I completely understand your angle.

I really like where this thread has gone to now.

[Rentafence]

The concept of natural is subjective. I win.

[DarkHalo003]

The concept of natural is subjective. I win.
+rep.

[TVTyrant]

everything perceived about everything ever is subjective

#thejokeralwayswins

[Pooky]

everything perceived about everything ever is subjective #thejokeralwayswins Said what I was going to say.

[TVTyrant]

Said what I was going to say.
The Joker Always Wins?

[Rentafence]

everything perceived about everything ever is subjective

#thejokeralwayswins

Not true. We can all perceptive, say, visible light. We can objectively say whether something is or isn't the color blue. Facts about the world around us can be perceived objectively, where as things that aren't tangible, like ideas, are subjective because they're created by people.

Do we HAVE to have a thread about this?

Natural means occurs in nature. There ya go you cockholes.
One could argue that anything is natural, because it occurs within the universe, and one could also argue only things created outside of human intervention are natural, because human intervention is unnatural. The idea of natrual is subjective in that there is no idea of natural that manifests itself in the universe.


My point is, any discussion about objective truth about human ethics or human constructs is pointless because of the inherent subjectivity of the concept.

[thehoodedsmack]

Except that medical conditions such as extreme colour blindness and personal variances make it such that while most people can tell blue is blue (already subjective), the exact neural response to light frequency hitting your retina will be different for each and every person.

Also, human intervention is a natural occurrence. Big-bang -> Milky Way -> Sol System -> Earth -> Earth-bound life -> Humans -> Humans acting on their environment. You'd be a fool to think you or any other person has "free will", in the classical sense of self-determinism. You act based on previous experience and the current variables presented to your senses. It's quite natural.

As Carl Sagan once said, we are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

Born of stardust, and incubated on Earth, humans and their actions are, albeit a very complex, natural occurrence, one of the few with potential to reach out into the vast reach of space from which they sprang.

[Rentafence]

Except that medical conditions such as extreme colour blindness and personal variances make it such that while most people can tell blue is blue (already subjective), the exact neural response to light frequency hitting your retina will be different for each and every person.

I knew someone would say this. Except that regardless of how it's perceived, it's still known that it's light somewhere between 450nm-550nm range. That can't be argued. Even a colorblind person knows that the color they're looking at is blue, even if it looks red to them. I suppose the "dea" of blue is subjective, but its not so much an idea as it is a human label for something, similar to calling a celestial mass a star, or a planet.


Also, human intervention is a natural occurrence. Big-bang -> Milky Way -> Sol System -> Earth -> Earth-bound life -> Humans -> Humans acting on their environment. You'd be a fool to think you or any other person has "free will", in the classical sense of self-determinism. You act based on previous experience and the current variables presented to your senses. It's quite natural.

As Carl Sagan once said, we are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

Born of stardust, and incubated on Earth, humans and their actions are, albeit a very complex, natural occurrence, one of the few with potential to reach out into the vast reach of space from which they sprang.

Agreed.

[thehoodedsmack]

I knew someone would say this. Except that regardless of how it's perceived, it's still known that it's light somewhere between 450nm-550nm range. That can't be argued. Even a colorblind person knows that the color they're looking at is blue, even if it looks red to them.

Except we don't, which is why I couldn't be a fireman if I wanted to. Sure, I could tell it was fire, and I could tell that fire was red, but because I can't see certain shades of it, I can't tell precisely how hot it is on visuals alone. The spectrum range is fixed, yes, that can't be argued, which is why I'm not doing it. I'm arguing your previous assertion that everyone can perceive it the same way. Perception is always subjective.

[DarkHalo003]

Well I do have one important question:

Will anything in this thread help or change anyone?

[thehoodedsmack]

Impossible to 100% determine.

But the positions presented herein could open minds to differing sides of an issue, thus nurturing independent inquisition into the matter. One of many possible outcomes.

[TVTyrant]

don't, fire, can't perceive
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2229/2127822846_aa3d6a3899.jpg

[thehoodedsmack]

Words which will echo in history, undoubtedly.

[Rentafence]

Except we don't, which is why I couldn't be a fireman if I wanted to. Sure, I could tell it was fire, and I could tell that fire was red, but because I can't see certain shades of it, I can't tell precisely how hot it is on visuals alone. The spectrum range is fixed, yes, that can't be argued, which is why I'm not doing it. I'm arguing your previous assertion that everyone can perceive it the same way. Perception is always subjective.

I suppose color was a bad example, but the point stands that color can be measured objectively. The human eye is where subjectivity is involved.

[thehoodedsmack]

Since you were talking about colourblind people perceiving the colours, and not something objective like a spectroscopic reading, I made a point to clear things up. Otherwise, there's no beef with what you're saying.

[TVTyrant]

Words which will echo in history, undoubtedly.
TheHoodedSmack: One of the great minds of our generation.

Also, somebody who needs to post moar.

[t3h m00kz]

holy fuck for a second I thought a mod renamed the other thread as a joke

is this really happening

[Rentafence]

Since you were talking about colourblind people perceiving the colours, and not something objective like a spectroscopic reading, I made a point to clear things up. Otherwise, there's no beef with what you're saying.

i actually have spectrophotometers for eyes :iamafag:

[DarkHalo003]

holy fuck for a second I thought a mod renamed the other thread as a joke

is this really happening
No Mookz, it's a dream, so I guess it's okay that elephants are currently playing awesome jazz music in your living room.

[t3h m00kz]

I think that may have been those brownies your mom made and told you not to get into

[TVTyrant]

holy fuck for a second I thought a mod renamed the other thread as a joke

is this really happening
No, this is all a dream. Now get back in bed you cum receptacle.

[DarkHalo003]

I think that may have been those brownies your mom made and told you not to get into
Who took the cookie from the cookie jar?

(Shitting up my own thread)

[rossmum]

i put it to you that in future we can avoid needing two threads for every topic by simply using words by their purest, most objective definition, and finding another word if that definition does not fit our arguments

[DarkHalo003]

i put it to you that in future we can avoid needing two threads for every topic by simply using words by their purest, most objective definition, and finding another word if that definition does not fit our arguments
Agreed.

[Rentafence]

i put it to you that in future we can avoid needing two threads for every topic by simply using words by their purest, most objective definition, and finding another word if that definition does not fit our arguments

I would have no reason to shitpost if we did that. Why are you trying to put me out of a job?

[TVTyrant]

I would have no reason to shitpost if we did that. Why are you trying to put this whole forum out of a job?
ftfy

[=sw=warlord]

This has to be the most un-natural thread I've ever seen in my life.
all the lot of you are fucking freaks of nature.

[DarkHalo003]

This has to be the most un-natural thread I've ever seen in my life.
all the lot of you are fucking freaks of nature.
I feel accomplished.

[=sw=warlord]

I feel accomplished.
Why?
you take a massive shit or something?

[TVTyrant]

Why?
you take a massive shit or something?
I approve of this message.

[Kornman00]

On Earth, society and civilization is a product of the human mind. An evolution beyond our primitive ways. Rape and murder are primitive acts for reproduction and survival. Marriage and relationships (note: not talking parenting, which is obviously seen in the wild with lions and such) are part of the evolution of reproduction and survival. Things become "natural" because they survive the tests of time and become engrained. The problem with homosexuality and today's culture is that we have various outdated/ignorant religions who can't take their own advice and love thy neighbor. But that's slowly changing.

Note: I have no intention of revisiting this thread, as I don't touch TGD anymore, nor did I read much beyond the first page of the thread. Reply to this if you really want to, but don't expect a response.

[DarkHalo003]

@Warlord: Yes. It was glorious.


On Earth, society and civilization is a product of the human mind. An evolution beyond our primitive ways. Rape and murder are primitive acts for reproduction and survival. Marriage and relationships (note: not talking parenting, which is obviously seen in the wild with lions and such) are part of the evolution of reproduction and survival. Things become "natural" because they survive the tests of time and become engrained. The problem with homosexuality and today's culture is that we have various outdated/ignorant religions who can't take their own advice and love thy neighbor. But that's slowly changing.

Note: I have no intention of revisiting this thread, as I don't touch TGD anymore, nor did I read much beyond the first page of the thread. Reply to this if you really want to, but don't expect a response.
The only good thing about today's religions, mainly with Christianity. Regardless, people will be ignorant because a lot of people aren't thinking past what they've been taught growing up.