You can't do that, it's unnatural!

[Tostig]

Why is it that whenever people find something they consider to be morally repugnant, be it rape, zoophilia, homosexuality, abuse or abortion, they instinctively claim that it is unnatural. Want to screen embryos for genes linked to having a diminished life? Well, that's designer babies that is. That's unnatural.

But where does this come from? It certainly wasn't around in the medieval period - people could just say it was against God. But in the Enlightenment project, when the intellectuals of Europe strived to find a moral system that everyone, be they Protestant, Catholic, Jewish or Athiest, could agree with. This produced some interesting results for the teleology - the ultimate aim - of mankind, such as Utiliarianism's happiness, or Kant's Categorical imperative. However all of these were fundamentally flawed, and after them there still remained the fractured remains of that half Platonic, half Semitic God. However in a world in which people rejected religion, what had been his creation, and what he was, were fundamentally interwoven, ever since Descartes and his rationalist chums envisioned God as being a universal, sustaining force. This is what people refer to when they say "unnatural". It's an appeal to the disintegrated remains of a divine being, not to anything universally acceptable to those who might disagree. It's an appeal to authority, not logic in the slightest.

Besides, everything that people do is natural. People are made up of the same baryons, leptons and gauge bosons as everything else. To say otherwise is to deny everything which has been evident since Newton and Copernicus first sat up and told Western Europe and the world to stop deceiving itself.

So please, if you're going to try and persuade me, stick to the same meaningless vocabulary that I use. Telling me that a man inserting his penis into another man's rectum is not nice is a lot more likely to sway me than telling me it's unnatural!

[enoch]

here here

[ajm317]

Interesting.

I have often wondered where that annoying justification came from. I don't know if I agree with your assesment, but I don't have a better one. Certainly it is an appeal to authority of some kind, but the reason they place authority in it...that I don't get.

[Chaigidel]

I dunno i think unnatural is anything that seems really off , yes kinda an appeal

I mean something can be a natural process but be recognized as counterproductive or not useful to the person observing such in the case of how most people say homosexuality is unnatural its because it offends a personal sense of nature disconnected imo from god or godhead(homosexuality is perfectly natural and always will be btw)

but as a society you can recognize the rape and cannibalism of several young men by another man as "unnaturally motivated" moreover it seems to be a malfunction of the natural process---

so unnatural to me when someone says it just states that something feels wrong or moves against sensibility--- i dont think it has anything to do with a concept of god or nature but a more basic instinct in people to distance themselves from things that they perceive as dangerous or corruptive.

so to say i dont think anyone thinks about it when they state something as unnatural--- because by its very existence yes it is natural whatever the thing as you said :O

[Spart]

Walking around without pants in public is as natural as it gets, and it's illegal.

When people say "Natural" I think they basically mean something that is a tradition or a norm that they're used to. Something that has been done for ages. This, of course, has got nothing to do with the real nature of mankind, if there indeed is such thing. I sometimes think "what would a man living 50 000 years ago have done", and that's what I define as somewhat natural thing.

[Imperator Sulla]

I don't want to get into any moral or filosophical debate about what's natural or acceptable. I just want to state that the lack of norms and values(whether they are or we think are valid, or not) is turning mordern man into gready, individualistic, egotistical, all relativating?, all consuming cattle(getting al worked up again ).

Personally my highest authorithy is God. His word gives is my window of reference for proper behavior. How you choose your window of reference is up to you personaly but I highly recommend God and his word. His invitation to you still stands(no don't flame me on this one, I just had to say it).

We as human beings need certain boundries to function properly and to develop ourselves, hence the law. The law defines our society and is imho the foundation on wich we built/have built our society. The law cannot function without the overall acceptance of morals and values on wich the law is founded and the willingness of man to accept this law in their social and personal lives.
By making morals and values of society relative to peoples own desires(I want to do what I want to do, so I can't tell other people how to act or they will do the same to me), the law becomes relative because man is unwilling to accept law as an authority over their own desires wich conflict with current morals and values therefore society becomes unstable an uncertain. We throw away our responsibility for eachother because we want to be "free". Society can only exist if people have a common denominator. We can't be little island onto ourselves an still reap de benefits of society.

I wrote this hastly and I know it isn't properly built up, but I hope you catch my drift. I realy don't think I have the time to write a proper post but who knows.

O, and one more thing. The following is just my personal opinion so don't write this down to christian biggotness.
Sticking your most prized possession in a storing room for poop is just wrong, that's just no way to handle valuable equiptment . When I was a kid poking in poop was dirty, (uch)years down the road I don't think that has changed . No offence

[Tostig]

Therefore you will be able to use a fang as a construction material, or as a computing tool, more easily than as a way to effectively rip animal tissues?

I'm sure I could apply your arguement to a sharp piece of flint I might find in my garden in the same way. However I would consider it idiotic to claim that because of this that piece of silicon has an aim of ripping animal tissues.

[Ummon]

I'm sure I could apply your arguement to a sharp piece of flint I might find in my garden in the same way. However I would consider it idiotic to claim that because of this that piece of silicon has an aim of ripping animal tissues.

The problem is that the two items have been produced through an entirely different process:

1) your example is the result of a random series of accidents
2) my example is the result of a random series of accidents which follow a predetermined set of rules.

Life is something more than just random, but the result of coordinated, ordered randomness.

[Tom Paine]

The problem is that the two items have been produced through an entirely different process:

1) your example is the result of a random series of accidents
2) my example is the result of a random series of accidents which follow a predetermined set of rules.

Life is something more than just random, but the result of coordinated, ordered randomness.

Actually, they are both the result of a random series of accidents following a predetermined set of "rules"; the rules of physics are the only rules in both cases, in one case augmented by a non-rule, survival of the fittest - that is not a rule at all, its a sort of guidance as to which accidents continue. Life is no more than random events, though we like to wish it was more. Very egotistical, the human race.

[Town Watch]

Well, usually clothes are very practical, ever heard of General Winter? Even cavemen tended to have furs or something. This is of course in the northern hemisphere. Although it wussyfies people.

[Spart]

Well, usually clothes are very practical, ever heard of General Winter? Even cavemen tended to have furs or something. This is of course in the northern hemisphere. Although it wussyfies people.

Yes, indeed, I was merely making a point. Tossing your own poo at other people monkey-style isn't acceptable, even if you had a natural urge to do that.

So, is the common word "natural" just a definition for "what is acceptable at the moment"? New things become natural as they are adapted and succesfully used, other new things are not considered natural but just might be in the next 200 years, once we get over the shock.

[Tostig]

Actually, selection has a dedicated result, a teleology: survival.

No it doesn't. Your genomes don't wake up in the morning and think "What have I got to do today, oh yes, survive." Rather, their either survive or don't survive, and there's nothing more to it than that. Genomes that exist have survived, it doesn't mean that the aim of their existence is survival. Please, if you have to give object things subjective properties, why not "The selection has a teleology: be selfish" or "exploit others". After all, nature is red in tooth and claw, is it not? Why, because society as a whole says that such concepts create fear, and what is the unwritten teleos of modern ideas? To remove fear.

Or are you telling me that as an essential part of the hydrocarbons that make up our bodies is written "Survive!" in some meta-physical script that is unobservable? In which case I'd point, laugh and kick you out of my peer reviewed journal.

[Tom Paine]

Natural means "something I don't mind/don't dislike". Its a very subjective and abused term in this context, and should be removed (for the period of a year) from every English speakers' vocabulary. Then we might see a more reasonable debate, than "Its unnatural"...

[Ummon]

So indeed, if I decide that in truth eating my neighbour is a good habit, it's ok.

The problem is that, unfortunately, eating one's neighbour has serious adverse effects, because it's unnatural! It causes prion diseases...

Unnatural, as in: not a good use given the project of human body.

[Tom Paine]

"Project"? What project of the human body is that but one personally and arbitrarily designed? Perchance you did not mean project?

[Chaigidel]

think he means in a physical sense , considering your body will start misprogramming itself and give you basically madcow disease by eating another person-- clearly in nature that process was not intended nor designed against its simply a side effect of eating something of your own species , your body can sometimes pick up the eaten dna, and start a catastrophic break down of your natural processes.

[Ummon]

A project can spontaneously arise by adaptation and exaptation. That doesn't make it any less project-like. :wink:

[Tom Paine]

think he means in a physical sense , considering your body will start misprogramming itself and give you basically madcow disease by eating another person-- clearly in nature that process was not intended nor designed against its simply a side effect of eating something of your own species , your body can sometimes pick up the eaten dna, and start a catastrophic break down of your natural processes.

Then how have cultures which practice cannibalism not died out in toto? Furthermore that accounts for one thing referred to as unnatural and not the pethora of others such as homosexuality and contraception (oh, yes, so harmful, a way of preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies!)

A project can spontaneously arise by adaptation and exaptation. That doesn't make it any less project-like. :wink:

Um... Ummon, a project has a dedicated aim. Natural selection has no dedicated end result, and as such... is not a project in any meaningful recognisable sense of the word.

[Ummon]

Actually, selection has a dedicated result, a teleology: survival. The past of a project determines its future, as a form of evolutionary inertia.

[Tom Paine]

Actually, selection has a dedicated result, a teleology: survival. The past of a project determines its future, as a form of evolutionary inertia.

The past of a project has nothing to do with its future, and evolution has no dedicated result - it has no end result in mind, being mindless; it is a process. Would you say that energy has a dedicated result of equalisation because processes cause it to equalise? No. Why assign purpose to that which cannot have purpose, dedication or foresight to that which can have neither? Why this need to anthropomorphise?