NationStates Jolt Archive

Whilst I do appreciate that we could talk ourselves into a seizure over the nature of 'good' itself, but given that we so often associate what is 'normal', 'common', and/or 'orderly' in a 'natural environment' as good, it is worth a thought.

I guess the first step in my thought process was my idea of good society; one being free, harmonious, and safe. For me, it remains up for debate whether that exists in nature, and therefore whether nature really is the best model for human conduct.

That's what's called the naturalistic fallacy.

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

Of course not. For example, onions are 100% natural, but also the quintessence of evil incarnate.

It's natural for animals to kill and eat other animals in the wild, but damn a human if they ever try it.

It's natural for animals to kill and eat other animals in the wild, but damn a human if they ever try it.

Ahh but most humans don't have to hunt to exist anymore.

Ahh but most humans don't have to hunt to exist anymore.

Killing is killing though, you're killing cows, chickens and pigs by proxy if you eat meat. Also what that guy said is a little off since it's perfectly fine for humans to hunt if they choose to, just not their own kind, and most species don't eat their own kind anyways.

That does open a further question of whether right, is right, if it is contrary to natural order or instinct. Are we as a species on the brink of extinction precisely because we shrugged off the natural order?

Are we as a species on the brink of extinction

We're not even close to that, very much the opposite (overpopulation).

We're not even close to that, very much the opposite (overpopulation).

Which leads to...

i think the first hurdle this discussion needs to overcome, is that prevalence of misconceptions about what is natural, and the demonizing of it, by some organized beliefs, and as a means to pursue political advantage.

one thing dominant predatory nations need very soon to understand, is that the health of a predator population is controlled by the availability of its prey. (and that the option of being neither is real, and would be to everyone's advantage.)

another thing, what darwin was talking about, what he meant by "fitness", is not the physical strength or advantage of any one species over another not in direct competition for the same ecological niche, but rather the ability of that species, whether by predation or otherwise, to beneficially COexist, with other species in its natural environment.

nature tolerates hierarchy, it does not mandate it.

there are also, or seem to be, a lot of misconception about what is and is not truly freedom. again these can be blamed on political strategy, sometimes masquerading as religion or belief.

Which leads to...

diminished average quality of life?

Natural is often considered good because:

nature is sustainable. If it wasn't, there's no way it could have survived all those hundreds of millions of years on its own, surviving itself and numerous extraterestrial impacts.

Humans evolved to survive nature. The reason we'd die in nature is the same reason couch potatoes aren't going to win any olympic events: use it or lose it.

Nature isn't always safe. But unlike our patroleum-powered civilizations, nature will last a long time, despite our massive efforts to kill as much of it as possible in the name of, well, killing it. Maybe we should devote less of our efforts into bulldozing rain forests and more effort into surviving nature. Earthquakes and hurricanes will continue to kick our asses. You can either beat that bigger, stronger Nature guy to death or you can learn how to not get beaten to death by that bigger, stronger guy. You might even make friends with him if you weren't hell-bent on beating Nature to death.

diminished average quality of life?

Reduction of food supply, damage to viability of environment; extinction. Our ability to dodge evolution natural thinning processes will one day be our own undoing, maybe ;)

I think only one thing needs to be pointed out here: If we went to all "natural" foods ("organically" grown, no pesticides or nitrate fertilizers) - then half of humanity would starve to death in a year.

That's what's called the naturalistic fallacy.


No it isn't.

Whilst I do appreciate that we could talk ourselves into a seizure over the nature of 'good' itself, but given that we so often associate what is 'normal', 'common', and/or 'orderly' in a 'natural environment' as good, it is worth a thought.

I guess the first step in my thought process was my idea of good society; one being free, harmonious, and safe. For me, it remains up for debate whether that exists in nature, and therefore whether nature really is the best model for human conduct.

I would say that natural can equal good, but it's not necessarily true.

Good is measured usually by benefit to the community or individuals; that can coincide with natural, but to think that because of that everything natural would be good would logically require mankind to start living up trees again.

"Natural" is neither inherently good nor inherently bad.

I mean, it's not "natural" for me to wear little flexible lenses on my eyes, but I definitely consider it superior to walking into things. :tongue:

You know how lions and hyenas primarily kill their prey?

Unless the prey is small enough to get a decent choke hold on it, they rip its abdomen open and eat its internal organs while it's still alive. You don't see that kind of thing on Animal Planet but that's the reality of the jungle.

I'm not sure how much you guys are into nature shows but there are a lot of examples like that. Wasps paralyzing caterpillars and then shoving the caterpillars in a hole with their eggs, and then the eggs hatch and the wasp larvae eat the caterpillar alive.

And if you think that's bad, look up the Cordyceps fungus.

Stuff that happens in nature isn't "right" in any way. A lot of it is brutal, awful and merciless.

WARNING: This link leads to a fairly graphic Youtube video of the kind of thing I'm talking about. If that's not your thing don't click it. May not be appropriate for all audiences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYvdFQyFW1U

That does open a further question of whether right, is right, if it is contrary to natural order or instinct. Are we as a species on the brink of extinction precisely because we shrugged off the natural order?

Well natural is as nebulous a term as good.

Is it natural for a domestic turkey to exist? If so, is it right for it to be devoured by predators since it has no naturally occuring instinct to flee predators?

If not, then how is the nearly universal tendency of humans to keep pets somehow unnatural? It would seem to follow that domestication, an extension of that universal human urge, is also natural.

The idea that what is natural is good is a useful one, but not a hard and fast rule. Processed foods, authoritarian religions, chemical fertilizers, so many artificial replacements for natural things have so many harmful consequences that in most cases the burden of proof for the desierability of the artificial over the natural would be on the artificier, not the naturalist.

Does 'natural' necessitate 'right'

No.



I'm going to write something here to avoid the minimum character limit, but you can ignore it.

Humans evolved to survive nature. The reason we'd die in nature is the same reason couch potatoes aren't going to win any olympic events: use it or lose it.

I ignored the word "couch" the first time I read this.

Ang giggled.

No it isn't.

Okay then. You're probably right, but you might take a second to correct me if it isn't too much trouble. Assuming, in ethics at least, that what is 'natural' is right or desirable is how you would commit the naturalistic fallacy to someone who rejects that line of reasoning. That's what I thought, at least.

I think we are living in the natural world to some extent. Humans are using the only weapon we have to survive our intellect.

Human have no hide, no defenses really, no claws, no horns,

We walk upright exposing our inner organs, we are slower than most animals

A human takes far longer than any other animal to mature. When we have children which also is difficult, we normally only have one. We require a huge amount of resources to live. We eat a lot, drink a lot. We can't handle extremes in temperature. We can swim a little, we can't fly.

Pound for pound a frog is tougher than us and more adaptable.

We pride ourselves in going against nature. Where in the wild the sick would be left to fend for themselves, we aid them. If you have a birth defect or are handicapped in some way we normally provide for that person. When you eyesight is poor we build corrective lenses. Your hearing is bad, we build hearing aids. In nature you would be deaf or blind. It is not natural for humans to fly but we build machine to do it for us. Fact is most of us don't even like nature. If you go to most cities they would almost certainly pave over most of it. We bring water to the desert, we live in inhospitable climates, climb mountains just because it is there and we can. We seek to control tides, waves, geothermal energy, wind, solar. We burn fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow.

Is natural good? Lead is natural. Arsenic is natural. Uranium is natural. Nicotine is natural. Botulinum toxin is natural. Those things and many more all have one thing in common, they're very dangerous substances and will likely kill you if you ingest them.

Is natural good? Fuck no.

Is natural good? Lead is natural. Arsenic is natural. Uranium is natural. Nicotine is natural. Botulinum toxin is natural. Those things and many more all have one thing in common, they're very dangerous substances and will likely kill you if you ingest them.

Is natural good? Fuck no.

nature isn't all bad either. Trees are natural and we kinda need them. Soil is also natural and we do kinda need that too, you know, for crops and the plants our meat eats. People like nature because nature is sustainable. It recycles alot.

Our modern society, on the other hand, isn't sustainable. It relies on petroleum which, like it or not, will run out sooner rather than later. Our society's making us weak because once you no longer rely on strength, speed, endurance, or having to make life or death decisions on the fly, atrophy tends to set in. Our population had grown much too large and once our fossil fuels run out, we're going to need a viable alternative fast or else we're screwed.

Also, there are numerous synthetic cleaning agents that could just as easily kill you. And Plutonium isn't exactly naturally occuring. But nature goes against the laws of Xenuland and those Scientologists are stupid, ruthless, and able to afford a huge army of lawyers. Rant anymore and Zepland's screwed.

Reduction of food supply, damage to viability of environment; extinction. Our ability to dodge evolution natural thinning processes will one day be our own undoing, maybe ;)

It's unlikely that would lead to total extinction, humans too clever.

It's unlikely that would lead to total extinction, humans too clever.

Intelligence is not always an evolutionary advantage, some of the planet's most successful life is its simplest

Intelligence is not always an evolutionary advantage, some of the planet's most successful life is its simplest

But no other species is at the same level of self consciousness. If that isn't at least as good as the odds of the survival of a one cell organism, I guess time will tell, but I wouldn't bet on it.

But no other species is at the same level of self consciousness. If that isn't at least as good as the odds of the survival of a one cell organism, I guess time will tell, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Again, intelligence doesn't equate to an evolutionary advantage by default. Single-celled organisms have an infinitely greater ability to survive and thrive.

Again, intelligence doesn't equate to an evolutionary advantage by default. Single-celled organisms have an infinitely greater ability to survive and thrive.

Nobody said that to begin with, no need to repeat yourself. The truth is the traditional scientific notion of evolution does not apply to humans anyways.

Nobody said that to begin with, no need to repeat yourself. The truth is the traditional scientific notion of evolution does not apply to humans anyways.

Name one reputable scientist who has made the claim evolution isn't relevant to human beings.

Name one reputable scientist who has made the claim evolution isn't relevant to human beings.

Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin.

He devoted an entire book on the evolution of humanity, The Descent of Man

Nature is neither good nor evil - it just is. Nature can be brutal at times and seemingly immoral but I think it's a mistake to impose our own moral judgments on nature or to try and infer morality from nature. Take a look at this (WARNING GRAPHIC): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZRw0IYdf3g&feature=related

nature isn't all bad either.
I didn't say that it is bad, I just said it isn't good and I was trying to convey the message that I can't really understand why so many people seem to think that what is natural is always good. "Mother Nature" is one cruel bitch that extinguishes countless lives every day and produces some of the most dangerous and destructive substances and actions known to mankind. Also, good an evil or bad are a matter of opinion.

People like nature because nature is sustainable.
Everything dies. Eventually so will everything left on this planet, leaving behind nothing but a charred and freezing wasteland. There will come a day when there are no scavengers left to pick the carrion from the bones of the myriad of bodies that will litter the landscape slowly being buried by the dust as they mummify.

Our modern society, on the other hand, isn't sustainable.
Nothing is truly sustainable forever. I think our ability to adapt to more environments than any other animal on the planet is evidence of our species' supremacy.

It relies on petroleum which, like it or not, will run out sooner rather than later.
And that petroleum was once living organisms, hence the term fossil fuel. In a sense, burning coal is a form of recycling and that would make Exxon Mobil ecological heroes.

Our society's making us weak because once you no longer rely on strength, speed, endurance, or having to make life or death decisions on the fly, atrophy tends to set in.
I think our ability to adapt to more environments than any other animal on the planet is evidence of our species' supremacy.

Also, there are numerous synthetic cleaning agents that could just as easily kill you.
I never said there weren't.

And Plutonium isn't exactly naturally occuring.
Firstly, I said Uranium, not Plutonium. Number B, it does occur naturally in trace amounts.

But nature goes against the laws of Xenuland and those Scientologists are stupid, ruthless, and able to afford a huge army of lawyers. Rant anymore and Zepland's screwed.
What the fuck are you talking about?

He devoted an entire book on the evolution of humanity, The Descent of Man

Obviously descent implies the past, not present or future.

Obviously descent implies the past, not present or future.

That is the single stupidest thing I have ever heard, seriously. I have never, ever seen someone simultaneously admit Darwin wrote extensively on human evolution and deny the same

That is the single stupidest thing I have ever heard, seriously. I have never, ever seen someone simultaneously admit Darwin wrote extensively on human evolution and deny the same

People like you who proudly and boldly miss the point from the beginning make me sleepy.

Nobody said that to begin with, no need to repeat yourself. The truth is the traditional scientific notion of evolution does not apply to humans anyways.

Yes it does. Sure, we may be at the top of the foodchain, but so were t-rexes and they sure as hell weren't invinsible. Sure, we may have technology, but what happens when the oil and natural gas runs out? And what if another ice age strikes, whether from yet another extraterrestrial impact or from global warming melting the ice caps, thereby releasing a lot of fresh water into the oceans, disrupting the ocean conveyor thingies, which are more responsible for the weather than many people think? What happens if the human population gets too large and uses too many vital resources? And what happens if a smarter, stronger, faster species evolves? And there's the bomb. We may have gotten too smart for our own good because we have the bomb.

People like you who proudly and boldly miss the point from the beginning make me sleepy.

Nothing, nothing about your argument is right, not one thing, that is extraordinary, almost an anti-power.

First of all: What's "right" anyway? While you can mostly tell if something's natural or not, right or wrong is almost exclusively a matter of perspective or philosophy.

Nobody said that to begin with, no need to repeat yourself. The truth is the traditional scientific notion of evolution does not apply to humans anyways.

How so?

Natural is often considered good because:

nature is sustainable. If it wasn't, there's no way it could have survived all those hundreds of millions of years on its own, surviving itself and numerous extraterestrial impacts.

Humans evolved to survive nature. The reason we'd die in nature is the same reason couch potatoes aren't going to win any olympic events: use it or lose it.

Nature isn't always safe. But unlike our patroleum-powered civilizations, nature will last a long time, despite our massive efforts to kill as much of it as possible in the name of, well, killing it. Maybe we should devote less of our efforts into bulldozing rain forests and more effort into surviving nature. Earthquakes and hurricanes will continue to kick our asses. You can either beat that bigger, stronger Nature guy to death or you can learn how to not get beaten to death by that bigger, stronger guy. You might even make friends with him if you weren't hell-bent on beating Nature to death.
First off, before you even personify "nature" just ask yourself what the distinction between nature and humanity is. We are a result of billions of years of evolutionary history, and as such, we and what we do are technically natural. Everything artificial is arguably natural since it's an indirect result of the natural world.

In any case, even if you mean "nature" as "without the influence of civilization" that still doesn't necessarily mean that environmental sustainability is exclusive to nature. We should try to make civilization compatible with environmental sustainability, and I think that could be reasonably achieved. The real problem isn't civilization, but the overinfluence of money-centric thinking and the status quo WITHIN society.

In nature, some female mantises eat the male during sex.

Buildings, clothes and cooked food are unnatural, they dont grow in trees.

[/endthread]

In nature, some female mantises eat the male during sex.

Buildings, clothes and cooked food are unnatural, they dont grow in trees.

[/endthread]

I think you may be confusing naturalistic with natural, in your second statement

Whilst I do appreciate that we could talk ourselves into a seizure over the nature of 'good' itself, but given that we so often associate what is 'normal', 'common', and/or 'orderly' in a 'natural environment' as good, it is worth a thought.

I guess the first step in my thought process was my idea of good society; one being free, harmonious, and safe. For me, it remains up for debate whether that exists in nature, and therefore whether nature really is the best model for human conduct.

As with everything, there are some aspects in nature that are good and some that are bad. And by bad I mean, in our society context, perhaps unfair (ex: bear cub is born sick, bear mother refuses to nurse it and lets it die).

Although we're part of nature, we're in it, some of the 'normal' behavior of other sentient beings could seem barbaric for us. But once again, I guess this has to do with our context of society, which is unique for us but doesn't adhere only for us, humans. Other species also have models of society, not like ours of course, but still...

Is natural good? ...Nicotine is natural...
[snip]
Is natural good? Fuck no.

From the point of view of the tobacco plant, nicotine is great.

In the wild it is a poison that will make animals stop eating it after a few bites, rather like the opiates in immature poppy seeds.

Once humans learned how to exploit the pleasant effects of nicotine, tobacco flourished in a way few plants do. It conscripted humans to eradicate all their natural competitors and to actually feed it the enormous amounts of nutrients it consumes.

What is not natural? Just things invented by humans?

http://cdn-write.demandstudios.com/upload//3000/600/90/6/13696.jpg

First of all: What's "right" anyway? While you can mostly tell if something's natural or not, right or wrong is almost exclusively a matter of perspective or philosophy.

That is a matter of opinion.

Although we're part of nature, we're in it, some of the 'normal' behavior of other sentient beings could seem barbaric for us. But once again, I guess this has to do with our context of society, which is unique for us but doesn't adhere only for us, humans. Other species also have models of society, not like ours of course, but still...
I think you're in the right area here.

We can evaluate animals, including humans, by looking at their characteristic life. A female wolf who does not suckle and rear her young can be rightly called defective, or bad, in some way; it's natural for a female wolf to suckle and rear her young. However, a male polar bear who stays by his mate and cubs is, again in some way, defective or bad; it's natural for a male polar bear to leave his mate and future cubs behind.

Them's the breaks, but there's nothing necessarily cruel about these facts.

Humans are a funny animal, though, and perhaps what's characteristic of humans is that we have little or no characteristic ways of going about at all. So a perscriptive view of what is a 'characteristic' human life makes no sense; and thus we can reject the vast amnount of those who point at a certain individual/group and call them 'unnatural'.

On an explanatory note, Moore's 'naturalistic fallacy' has been brought up. Moore's claim, simply, is that 'good' is a "simple, indefinable, unanalysable" term, and that, although we can readily discuss things about goodness, we cannot say anything on the matter of what goodness is. Thus, if we accept this claim, we couldn't say that 'good=natural'.

But I, following Elizabeth Anscombe and others, reject Moore's 'fallacy', for it is essentially saying that the statement "x is a good person" is a 'special', evaluative statement; an entirely different beast from statements such as "y is a good bagel" or "z is a good view". However, this change in the meaning of good from descriptive to evaluative is inexplicable. We happily talk of objectively 'good plants' or 'good (non-human) animals' in relation to facts about the nature of these plants and animals, and often factually evaluate parts of ourselves - our sight, hearing, memory, etc. - with little difficulty.

As Philippa Foot says, "[w]hy, then, does it seem so monstrous a suggestion that the evaluation of the human will should be determined by facts about the nature of human beings and the life of our own species?"

(In case folks are wondering at a perhaps odd style, much of the above post is adapted from my degree dissertation, which discussed this very problem.)

Which leads to...

sexy parties?

Drunken sexy parties?

Nature is neither good nor evil - it just is. Nature can be brutal at times and seemingly immoral but I think it's a mistake to impose our own moral judgments on nature or to try and infer morality from nature. Take a look at this (WARNING GRAPHIC): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZRw0IYdf3g&feature=related

That is messed up! You wonder why people hate cats. Sheesh. Natural is not better, many times it is worse. Laws are against nature. Medicine is pretty much against nature. Charity is against nature for the most part.


Starvation and malnutrition are natural

Disease is natural

I have it the most unnatural of all. Space travel. An environment totally manufactured, most synthetic and yet people can sustain themselve for many day, weeks, years.


No animal is meant to travel space. We can live without most of it. Would we be happier. Likely not or we would not have built cities in the first place. Can it be fun to get back to every now and then and possibly even live amongst, yes.

We can live without nature for the most part we have proved time and time again. I know people who have never left the city limits of New York City. When asked why they say"where would I go? Everything I need is here"

Reduction of food supply, damage to viability of environment; extinction. Our ability to dodge evolution natural thinning processes will one day be our own undoing, maybe ;)
Disease circles like hyenas.

From the point of view of the tobacco plant, nicotine is great.

In the wild it is a poison that will make animals stop eating it after a few bites, rather like the opiates in immature poppy seeds.

Once humans learned how to exploit the pleasant effects of nicotine, tobacco flourished in a way few plants do. It conscripted humans to eradicate all their natural competitors and to actually feed it the enormous amounts of nutrients it consumes.Good point, as is often the case with many of your posts, mon capitan.

for some unfathomable reason, much of what is natural seems to be identified with the left.

mostly because the so called right denies it, claiming to be self made, thus releaving the deity of a great burden of responsibility.

Natural is not better, many times it is worse.
'Worse' in what sense?

Laws are against nature. Medicine is pretty much against nature. Charity is against nature for the most part.
I don't see how these are 'against nature'. Laws, medicine and human charity are all very much a part of nature: humans, as natural beings, have created these things within nature. Laws and medicine are as naturalistic as diasese and malnutrition.

Isolating human existence from nature is a big mistake (and, incidentaly, I feel its a big part of the enviromental and socio-political mess we're in right now).

No, because due to our massive brains and such, us thinking of GM is "natural", but it's also absowtfstupid.

No. In nature, when a male lion drives off another and inherits the females in the pride, he kills all the cubs. No problem.


Do that in human society and you end up in jail.

We can live without nature for the most part we have proved time and time again. I know people who have never left the city limits of New York City. When asked why they say"where would I go? Everything I need is here"
That is truly sad. And I'm a New Yorker.

No. In nature, when a male lion drives off another and inherits the females in the pride, he kills all the cubs. No problem.


Do that in human society and you end up in jail.
You speak as if from experience.
you NY'ers are definitely a breed apart.

I think you may be confusing naturalistic with natural, in your second statement

What do you mean? Most of our food is unnatural because it goes thru chemical processes not found in nature.

You speak as if from experience.
you NY'ers are definitely a breed apart.
Only the sad experience of watching the evening news, and seeing how many times a year a single mother takes up with a new boyfriend who beats a toddler to death for crying or messing his diapers.

That's what's called the naturalistic fallacy.

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

That's more like Appeal to Nature, actually.

I think we are living in the natural world to some extent. Humans are using the only weapon we have to survive our intellect.

Human have no hide, no defenses really, no claws, no horns,

We walk upright exposing our inner organs, we are slower than most animals

A human takes far longer than any other animal to mature. When we have children which also is difficult, we normally only have one. We require a huge amount of resources to live. We eat a lot, drink a lot. We can't handle extremes in temperature. We can swim a little, we can't fly.

Pound for pound a frog is tougher than us and more adaptable.

In other words, since we have so many weaknesses and still made it to the top, we're like the ultimate badasses?

'Worse' in what sense?


I don't see how these are 'against nature'. Laws, medicine and human charity are all very much a part of nature: humans, as natural beings, have created these things within nature. Laws and medicine are as naturalistic as diasese and malnutrition.

Isolating human existence from nature is a big mistake (and, incidentaly, I feel its a big part of the enviromental and socio-political mess we're in right now).



Nature did not put bridge over most rivers.

Natural hair coloring ? Hair dye

Natural Eyesight - Eye glasses

Natural teeth - Dentures

Natural sent - Deodorant

Human should never fly, go to the bottom of the sea, go to space

Irrigation

Water purification

The list goes on and on.

That's more like Appeal to Nature, actually.



In other words, since we have so many weaknesses and still made it to the top, we're like the ultimate badasses?


Lion vs. Shotgun

Yes we are!

"Right" is a subjective concept; I'd doubt the merits of a discussion of "right" greatly.

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee273/dandevries/SafeRedirect-17.jpg

No. In nature, when a male lion drives off another and inherits the females in the pride, he kills all the cubs. No problem.

Do that in human society and you end up in jail.
Because it is not natural for a human to do that. A male lion who doesn't kill the male cubs (assuming that this is a constant) is in some way defective; a bad lion, so to speak.

Holding a lion up to the standards of a human, with our differing mental and physical capacities, is as silly as holding a human up to the standards of a dog or cat.



Nature did not put bridge over most rivers.

Natural hair coloring ? Hair dye

Natural Eyesight - Eye glasses

Natural teeth - Dentures

Natural sent - Deodorant

Human should never fly, go to the bottom of the sea, go to space

Irrigation

Water purification

The list goes on and on.
But all of your list is found in nature, produced by a naturalistic being; us. If you object to deodorant being natural, then you must also object to things such as tools used by chimps as unnatural.

We are very much a part of nature, and by consequence, so are our creations.



"Right" is a subjective concept; I'd doubt the merits of a discussion of "right" greatly.
Then have a discussion on whether 'right' is a subjective concept, for I, along with many others, would dispute this.

Because it is not natural for a human to do that. A male lion who doesn't kill the male cubs (assuming that this is a constant) is in some way defective; a bad lion, so to speak.

Holding a lion up to the standards of a human, with our differing mental and physical capacities, is as silly as holding a human up to the standards of a dog or cat.




But all of your list is found in nature, produced by a naturalistic being; us. If you object to deodorant being natural, then you must also object to things such as tools used by chimps as unnatural.

We are very much a part of nature, and by consequence, so are our creations.




Then have a discussion on whether 'right' is a subjective concept, for I, along with many others, would dispute this.
I didn't say I was holding a lion to human standards, or vice versa. People asked if "nature" was inherently right. The implication is that our artificially extended lives with artificial pelts, artificial caves, and artificial belongings are, by virtue of being unnatural, unright. Applying things that are fine in nature to human society just doesn't work.

Because it is not natural for a human to do that. A male lion who doesn't kill the male cubs (assuming that this is a constant) is in some way defective; a bad lion, so to speak.

Holding a lion up to the standards of a human, with our differing mental and physical capacities, is as silly as holding a human up to the standards of a dog or cat.




But all of your list is found in nature, produced by a naturalistic being; us. If you object to deodorant being natural, then you must also object to things such as tools used by chimps as unnatural.

We are very much a part of nature, and by consequence, so are our creations.




Then have a discussion on whether 'right' is a subjective concept, for I, along with many others, would dispute this.

Chimps
It is about time they learned to use tools. No problem there in fact I will give them some.

We were natural, I am not sure we are anymore. Most humans are so far removed from cave men (natural man). We are not even in the food chain for the most part.

Raise you hands any one on here who has had to slaughter his/her own food? How many went to the supermarket?

We can clone things need I say more?

.
On an explanatory note, Moore's 'naturalistic fallacy' has been brought up. Moore's claim, simply, is that 'good' is a "simple, indefinable, unanalysable" term, and that, although we can readily discuss things about goodness, we cannot say anything on the matter of what goodness is. Thus, if we accept this claim, we couldn't say that 'good=natural'.
is adapted from my degree dissertation, which discussed this very problem.)

So can you give a definition of goodness without relation to any sort of function or instance?

.But I, following Elizabeth Anscombe and others, reject Moore's 'fallacy', for it is essentially saying that the statement "x is a good person" is a 'special', evaluative statement; an entirely different beast from statements such as "y is a good bagel" or "z is a good view". However, this change in the meaning of good from descriptive to evaluative is inexplicable. We happily talk of objectively 'good plants' or 'good (non-human) animals' in relation to facts about the nature of these plants and animals, and often factually evaluate parts of ourselves - our sight, hearing, memory, etc. - with little difficulty.


I think they are all evaluative statements. "y is a good bagel" and "x is a good person" are both unacceptable without qualification of why they are good. Because we are willing to view non-human objects much more in simple terms (e.g. as the means to a specific end), we consider the degree to which they achieve those ends to be their degree of 'goodness'. However, that's not necessarily the only view we can have, it's just the most common and probably useful. That's why the objects with a more nebulous purpose such as 'art' produce such vehement disagreement.

.As Philippa Foot says, "[w]hy, then, does it seem so monstrous a suggestion that the evaluation of the human will should be determined by facts about the nature of human beings and the life of our own species?"

Because to view human beings as just a means to an end, for example, overlooks the complex nature of being moral agents who arguably have the capacity to alter how their species progresses, and the capacity to act against their nature. Granted this rests on how you define 'natural', and I am verging on dualism.

(In case folks are wondering at a perhaps odd style, much of the above post is adapted from my degree dissertation, which discussed this very problem.)

*gulp*

No, because due to our massive brains and such, us thinking of GM is "natural", but it's also absowtfstupid.
Wait... what?

for some unfathomable reason, much of what is natural seems to be identified with the left.

mostly because the so called right denies it, claiming to be self made, thus releaving the deity of a great burden of responsibility.
Hmm? What do you mean by the distinction between the "left" and the "right" and what do you mean by "natural"?

Applying things that are fine in nature to human society just doesn't work.
But this is my point exactly: "[a]pplying things that are fine in nature" for lions doesn't work, but "[a]pplying things that are fine in nature" for humans does.



We were natural, I am not sure we are anymore.
Then waht are we?

Supernatural?

Most humans are so far removed from cave men (natural man). We are not even in the food chain for the most part.
Tell that to the ebola virus...

I don't see how I am any less natural than a cave man. Surely, using your standard, you could argue that the cave man, with his paints and fire-making capabilities, wasn't natural either?



So can you give a definition of goodness without relation to any sort of function or instance?
No... I don't think I could.

I think they are all evaluative statements. "y is a good bagel" and "x is a good person" are both unacceptable without qualification of why they are good. Because we are willing to view non-human objects much more in simple terms (e.g. as the means to a specific end), we consider the degree to which they achieve those ends to be their degree of 'goodness'. However, that's not necessarily the only view we can have, it's just the most common and probably useful. That's why the objects with a more nebulous purpose such as 'art' produce such vehement disagreement.
I'd quite agree. A plant can be good in terms of its medicinal use, its ability to flower, or its (subjective) aesthetic qualities, all at the same time.

And you're right, "y is a good bagel" and "x is a good person" both need qualification, and they're evaluative statements. I'm simply saying that the kind of evaluation that is involved in "y is a good bagel" is the same as in "x is a good person".

Because to view human beings as just a means to an end, for example, overlooks the complex nature of being moral agents who arguably have the capacity to alter how their species progresses, and the capacity to act against their nature.
Again, I totally agree; and I certainly don't support an ethical system that views humans as means to an end. Indeed, what I am advocating is a form of virtue ethics, quite opposed to deontological or consequentialist treatment of humans as merely part of the equation.

EDIT: Which is an admittedly harsh reading of these two groups of theories.

Granted this rests on how you define 'natural', and I am verging on dualism.
Sorry, brain-fart on my part.

What dualism?

No... I don't think I could.

Then Moore's fallacy isn't a fallacy?


I'd quite agree. A plant can be good in terms of its medicinal use, its ability to flower, or its (subjective) aesthetic qualities, all at the same time.

And you're right, "y is a good bagel" and "x is a good person" both need qualification, and they're evaluative statements. I'm simply saying that the kind of evaluation that is involved in "y is a good bagel" is the same as in "x is a good person".

Are you saying there is only one kind of evaluation? Or if there is more than one, why are both(or more) not applicable, and not exclusive? And how would you tell which is which?


Again, I totally agree; and I certainly don't support an ethical system that views humans as means to an end. Indeed, what I am advocating is a form of virtue ethics, quite opposed to deontological or consequentialist treatment of humans as merely part of the equation.

EDIT: Which is an admittedly harsh reading of these two groups of theories.


Stop agreeing with me dammit.

Due to not being an expert on 'virtue ethics', I'm not sure I can criticise. But my immediate thought is that it doesn't sound based on "acts about the nature of human beings and the life of our own species". Is it still the same way you decide how good a bagel is?


Sorry, brain-fart on my part.

What dualism?

Well, I meant that once I start saying "humans can act against their nature", then how do we transcend our nature without appealing to some non-physical, non-natural source? Different but related question (and possibly more OT) :D

Then Moore's fallacy isn't a fallacy?
I certainly don't think it is.

Are you saying there is only one kind of evaluation? Or if there is more than one, why are both(or more) not applicable, and not exclusive? And how would you tell which is which?
I'm more saying that the evaluation of the sort, "x is a good person" is not some 'special' evaluation that differs from all other evaluations. The word 'good' has no different qualities when it is used to evaluate humans than when it it is used to evaluate bagels, dandelions, cats, etc.

Stop agreeing with me dammit.
OK.

Err... I mean no!

Oh dear.

Due to not being an expert on 'virtue ethics', I'm not sure I can criticise. But my immediate thought is that it doesn't sound based on "acts about the nature of human beings and the life of our own species". Is it still the same way you decide how good a bagel is?
Apologies, I'm confusing the issue somewhat.

I've got two points here: Firstly, I'm arguing that Moore's 'naturalistic fallacy' is false, and thus a naturalistic ethic is possible. Specifically, I'm claiming that
Ethical sentences express propositions.
Some such propositions are true.
Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of human opinion.
These moral features of the world can be reduced to some set of non-moral features.

Secondly, I'm arguing that the naturalistic ethic we should go for is a variant of virtue ethics, something along the lines of the neo-Aristotelian Ethical Naturalism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/#NeoAriNat), as espoused by Phillipa Foot and Rosalind Hursthouse. (However, I'd note that I don't fully agree with Foot and Hursthouse, and that I'm currently researching non-Aristotelian virtue ethics, heavily inspired by Hume and Nietszche.)

Very generally, Foot/Hursthouse's theory says that we can evaluate character traits based up on the characteristic life, the facts, of a human being (something which, as I've noted above, has very little common characteristics), just as a botanist evaluates a plant based on its characteristic life, or an ethologist evaluates a non-human animal based on its characteristic life.

This is where "facts about the nature of human beings and the life of our own species" comes in.

Well, I meant that once I start saying "humans can act against their nature", then how do we transcend our nature without appealing to some non-physical, non-natural source?
I doubt we can.

But I wouldn't say that we act against our nature, just that 'human nature' is so small -- there's very few characteristic goings on in humans, beyond being social animals wuth the capacity for rationality -- that we can drastically alter our life.

We've the ability to improve our lives, and the lives of others, without disregarding our nature or Nature around us.

I certainly don't think it is.
I'm more saying that the evaluation of the sort, "x is a good person" is not some 'special' evaluation that differs from all other evaluations. The word 'good' has no different qualities when it is used to evaluate humans than when it it is used to evaluate bagels, dandelions, cats, etc.


Sorry, are you saying that good CAN be defined, or is irreducible? Because if you can't define 'good', surely that means you cannot say natural=good?


I've got two points here: Firstly, I'm arguing that Moore's 'naturalistic fallacy' is false, and thus a naturalistic ethic is possible. Specifically, I'm claiming that
Ethical sentences express propositions.
Some such propositions are true.
Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of human opinion.
These moral features of the world can be reduced to some set of non-moral features.



Care to give an example? It's difficult to get my head around the structure without some content!


Secondly, I'm arguing that the naturalistic ethic we should go for is a variant of virtue ethics, something along the lines of the neo-Aristotelian Ethical Naturalism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/#NeoAriNat), as espoused by Phillipa Foot and Rosalind Hursthouse. (However, I'd note that I don't fully agree with Foot and Hursthouse, and that I'm currently researching non-Aristotelian virtue ethics, heavily inspired by Hume and Nietszche.)

Very generally, Foot/Hursthouse's theory says that we can evaluate character traits based up on the characteristic life, the facts, of a human being (something which, as I've noted above, has very little common characteristics), just as a botanist evaluates a plant based on its characteristic life, or an ethologist evaluates a non-human animal based on its characteristic life.
This is where "facts about the nature of human beings and the life of our own species" comes in.

But I wouldn't say that we act against our nature, just that 'human nature' is so small -- there's very few characteristic goings on in humans, beyond being social animals wuth the capacity for rationality -- that we can drastically alter our life.


but if our nature is so small a part of our capacity, how is a naturalistic basis for ethics useful?

Sorry, are you saying that good CAN be defined, or is irreducible? Because if you can't define 'good', surely that means you cannot say natural=good?
Good can be defined, but its definition depends on what we are evaluating. Thus what makes a good dandelion, cheetah or human, depends on the characteristic life of, respectively, dandelions, cheetahs and humans. Therefore, for example, though feminists are right to complain about unequal standards between male and female humans, complaining that a female cheetah has a bad lot in life compared to a male cheetah -- forced to hunt for food while heavily pregnant, etc. -- is nonsensical.

What is good for one lifeform is not necessarily good for another.

In respect of humans, I am very sympathetic to the view of Rosalind Hursthouse that a good human is one which is well fitted in respect of their (i) emotions, (ii) desires, and (iii) actions (from reason and inclination); whether they are thus well fitted is determined by whether these aspects well serve (1) their survival, (2) the continuance of the species, (3) their charcteristic freedom from pain and characteristic enjoyment, (4) the good functioning of their social groups, (5) their autonomy, (6) the accumulation of knowledge, and (7) a meaningful life, in the way characteristic of human beings (i.e., in a way that can rightly be seen as good).

Incidentally, I see the above as driving us towards a radical environmental and sociopolitical critique of modern society, insofar as that it prevents the above, human flourishing.

Care to give an example? It's difficult to get my head around the structure without some content!
Of course; a lack of foresight on my part.

Take the statement, "murder is wrong". Firstly, I'm saying that this statement is a proposition. It's more than just saying, "I personally dislike murder", or "murder turns me off"; it's a factual statement similar to something like, "fire is hot" (ignoring, for the sake of argument, those epistemological wankers who'd dispute that fire was hot).

Secondly, as a factual statement, I claim that the proposition is truth-relative. It is either true or false; again, like the statement, "fire is hot". Thus, we can evaluate the proposition as correct or incorrect, not merely accept it as someone's subjective, unevaluatable point-of-view.

Thirdly, the statement, "murder is wrong", is either true or false based upon objective features of the natural world. It is not true or false depending on the Word of God, the moral imperative, or any other non-naturalistic device.

Finally, these objective features of the natural world, upon which we evaluate the truth or falsity of moral propositions, are non-moral. Specifically in my argument, these are the characteristic goings on of the human species; objective facts about human needs, desires and ways of going on.

So when we say, "murder is wrong", I am claiming that we are stating a factual, truth-relative proposition that can be evaluated by referring to non-moral objective facts about the world.

but if our nature is so small a part of our capacity, how is a naturalistic basis for ethics useful?
Primarily because there is a characteristic way of going about as a human, even if that varies in the details enormously. Secondly, I believe it grounds morality, and moreover humanity itself, in nature; something which Western philosophy has been badly lacking in, even in recent years. Thirdly, I think it's a much more sensible way of thinking about morality, about 'good'; bringing it back, as Wittgenstein said, "from the metaphysical to the everyday".

But this is my point exactly: "[a]pplying things that are fine in nature" for lions doesn't work, but "[a]pplying things that are fine in nature" for humans does.




Then waht are we?

Supernatural?



We are over mechanized, manufactured, prepackaged, sanitized. Machines making machines that is where we are headed. Doing our work for us, educating us, and entertaining us. We make machines that can think, speak, and listen. We study biology so we can control it, improve it, and lastly to understand it. We reject nature.

We are over mechanized, manufactured, prepackaged, sanitized.
But we are still all these things inside nature. We are still a part of nature, in the sense that we are part of the natural universe.

Our machines are made from things found in the world, or things made from things found in the world, etc. Our (fucked-up) society is still on Earth, still part of the universe.

We reject nature.
We, perhaps, reject the knowledge of being a part of nature (indeed, that's a problem that's been facing us since Aristotle's time and before) but, being natural beings, it is impossible to utterly reject nature.

It'd be like rejecting to breath in any way.

Okay then. You're probably right, but you might take a second to correct me if it isn't too much trouble. Assuming, in ethics at least, that what is 'natural' is right or desirable is how you would commit the naturalistic fallacy to someone who rejects that line of reasoning. That's what I thought, at least.

Actually, you're right it is a naturalistic fallacy in the sense that you're still deducing an ought form an is (is = 'this is natural', ought = 'therefore we should do this'). But I thought you were specifically calling the act of trying to be natural as a naturalistic fallacy, which it isn't (the naturalistic is referring to ethical naturalism, not specifically to 'nature'), although parts of the reasoning is.

Actually, you're right it is a naturalistic fallacy in the sense that you're still deducing an ought form an is (is = 'this is natural', ought = 'therefore we should do this'). But I thought you were specifically calling the act of trying to be natural as a naturalistic fallacy, which it isn't (the naturalistic is referring to ethical naturalism, not specifically to 'nature'), although parts of the reasoning is.
It's not helped by the fact that what Moore describes as the 'naturalistic fallacy', and what other people say Moore describes as as the 'naturalistic fallacy', are often wildely different.

But we are still all these things inside nature. We are still a part of nature, in the sense that we are part of the natural universe.

I don't know you can say the same thing about a Space Station which is no way natural. We are on the Big Blue marble because we have no other choice or because it suits us at this moment. What is our alternative?


Our machines are made from things found in the world, or things made from things found in the world, etc. Our (fucked-up) society is still on Earth, still part of the universe.

We are affected by it, but I am not sure we are a part of it. We were at one time but at some point we moved away. We sought to control it, overpower it, harness it. We have the ability to make river were there was none, bring water to the desert, put holes in moutains.


We, perhaps, reject the knowledge of being a part of nature (indeed, that's a problem that's been facing us since Aristotle's time and before) but, being natural beings, it is impossible to utterly reject nature.

It'd be like rejecting to breath in any way.

If we could figure out a way not to breathe and still remain functional. We would do it. We inject ourselves with diseases to remove wrinkles.
http://www.neurologychannel.com/botulinum/index.shtml

How is that for not natural?

While this is a little extreme it kind of sums up my point nicely. I don't want ot make this matrixy but it works pretty well.


Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.

I don't know you can say the same thing about a Space Station which is no way natural.
Huh? It stays in orbit in accordance with perfectly natural laws about inertia and gravity, not because pixies hold it up.

Huh? It stays in orbit in accordance with perfectly natural laws about inertia and gravity, not because pixies hold it up.

Sure of course but 100% unnatural. The raw materials may have come from the Earth but we could take them from say Mars for example. It is a rejection of nature and 100% man made. We can not defy physics yet but we are trying Anti-Gravity, faster than speed of Light travel. In chemistry we combine but force material that would not naturally go together. Create new element by trying to force atoms to behave as we would like.

Think of the colliders we build huge, unnatural, mammoth, expensive pieces of technology for what? To break apart atoms? To control it, to understand the fundamental building blocks of the universe, so we can one day re-build it to our liking. Hubris! No other animal would do these things.

By the way great topic!

Sure of course but 100% unnatural.
No. It is 100% NATURAL.
Think of the colliders we build huge, unnatural...
ALSO 100% natural.

With regard to Natural law I like Hobbes natural law. Pretty close if only we could live by them.

No. It is 100% NATURAL.

ALSO 100% natural.

Plastic does not form in nature it needs help. Electronics do not form by themselves in nature they also need help. If it were natural we would remain on the ground would we not?

We are affected by it, but I am not sure we are a part of it. We were at one time but at some point we moved away.
To where?

We sought to control it, overpower it, harness it. We have the ability to make river were there was none, bring water to the desert, put holes in moutains.
And woodpeckers have the ability to make holes in trees, where there prieviously where none.

Are these unnatural too?

Plastic does not form in nature it needs help. Electronics do not form by themselves in nature they also need help.
I think the disagreement here is from the way we're defining 'natural'. I take 'natural' to mean 'part of the natural universe', which includes anything created in nature, be it created by an intelligence or not.

Thus, things like plastic are natural, as they are created by nature, specifically by natural beings, we humans.

What do you mean by 'natural'?


If it were natural we would remain on the ground would we not?
Only if you think that the things humans produce are unnatural.

To where?

To civilization.


And woodpeckers have the ability to make holes in trees, where there prieviously where none.

Are these unnatural too?

Th scale seems to be different. For example you don't see a woodpecker trying to a peck a cactus.


I think the disagreement here is from the way we're defining 'natural'. I take 'natural' to mean 'part of the natural universe', which includes anything created in nature, be it created by an intelligence or not.


We ll nature to me mean anything you can see in nature. Trees, rocks, birds, animal, forest, river, swamp, desert.


Thus, things like plastic are natural, as they are created by nature, specifically by natural beings, we humans.


What do you mean by 'natural'?



Maybe I got the wrong idea what unnatural. A space station to me has nothing of nature in it. Unnatural to me is anything fabricated. If it is primarily built by human hands.

Let's take a car. You can find materials to make a car in nature but you likely will not be able to find a car that just popped out of a tree. On the other hand you may be able to find an apple in the right tree. man can not create an apple. He can modify one, change its color, texture, weight, size, shape, taste. Without an existing apple or an apple tree, man can not create. This may or may not be true today but I think you can see where I am going maybe an apple is a bad example. Substitute dog where I put apple. At some level nature implies living and non-living material co-existing. Gaia hypothesis. That is natural to me.




Only if you think that the things humans produce are unnatural.

Some are, some aren't