Missing posts / members X
Philosophy Forums was hacked on September 6th. Due to the hacker, everything between July 24th and September 6th is permanently missing. Unfortunately, automated backups had to be turned off months ago because they were crashing the server. We're evaluating how to stop this from happening again. You may be able to find your own posts in a google cache to re-post them, if you want to.

Natural vs. Unnatural

Natural vs. Unnatural
eski
<default rank title>

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 27, 2007
Location: Under the Sea

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 132
#1 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Sep 22, 2007 - 10:28 AM:
Subject: Natural vs. Unnatural
This, I have seen, is regularly discussed within ethical debates but I’ve never really seen it closed in on.

First off, I’d like to know what you think the difference between natural and unnatural is. That is define both terms and contrast.

Second off, I would like to know if you think that something being natural makes it more or less ethical than the unnatural given your definitions.

In summary, define the terms than argue your point.
redeyedphilosopher
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 5
#2 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Sep 22, 2007 - 1:45 PM:

eski wrote:
This, I have seen, is regularly discussed within ethical debates but I’ve never really seen it closed in on.

First off, I’d like to know what you think the difference between natural and unnatural is. That is define both terms and contrast.

Second off, I would like to know if you think that something being natural makes it more or less ethical than the unnatural given your definitions.

In summary, define the terms than argue your point.


First there is no difference between something natural and something unnatural. They are, to use a cliche, two sides of the same coin. Therefore they are inseperatable. Without one the other would perish and vice versa. The world was made with these differences that people divide into things that to them with their individual "lifescapes" seem natural or unnatural and those change from culture to culture and from time to time. Without these differences, or as some may put it the natural and the unnatural, it is arguable that we as a species would have never existed.

And because of the above "both" are ethically equal over a period of time for ethics is not a stagnant paradigm but something that socially evolves with the group aspect of human nature.
the logos
Newbie
Avatar

Usergroup: Deactivated By Request
Joined: Oct 28, 2005
Location: Findlay, IL

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 8
#3 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Sep 30, 2007 - 4:41 PM:

Natural vs Unnatural: a good debate, which can be viewed from a couple different perspectives. You could say that everything is natural and there is no such thing as unnatural simply because anything that could possibly exist must be natural (i.e.-allowed to exist by whatever it is that manifests things in to existence) Or you could begin to look at some of the limiting systems (economic, political, socioeconomic, science, religion,etc...) humans have established and things they have invented/concocted which very ignore what it seems nature is trying to teach us. Basically this would be everything, chemical, material, psychological, and otherwise brought about by man, that doesn't somehow reciprocate the modes of nature (what we can observe about its functioning and how man chooses not to play by the same rules it does). Anything man creates, from say, plastic, to oppressive, uncaring, and insincere government, that doesn't have a form of it that can be found in nature, could be taken as an example of something unnatural.

I don't think man can ever really create something outside of nature because to do so would be like saying that man could ever be above and in control of nature, which is false. If a huge meteorite smashes the earth to bits, almighty man is doomed. And this would be considered an obviously natural event. To worry about something being unnatural is to misunderstand what nature really is in the sense that man will always be subordinant to and yet still part of nature's design.
DMR
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 23, 2005

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7
#4 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Oct 1, 2007 - 4:36 AM:

When these terms are used in an ethical context, "Natural" means something like "Similar to the ideal state of the thing." For example, it's natural for human beings to pursue the things they need to be healthy, like good nutrition, exercise, and so forth. But a person who is depressed may neglect these things. Depression is something that happens in nature, but it is not an ideal state for a person.

For that matter, being healthy is an example of "Natural" in the ethical context.
the logos
Newbie
Avatar

Usergroup: Deactivated By Request
Joined: Oct 28, 2005
Location: Findlay, IL

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 8
#5 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Oct 1, 2007 - 1:53 PM:

Human nature is hard to pin down. Once you've added the element of passion, it isn't all about food, shelter, and health anymore. Someone with a lot of passion for something may wind up starving to death in their pursuit of the object of passion. And the source of passion seems to be from a higher mental need, not a lower bodily need. Since humans have self-awareness and the choice to do anything they desire, it is hard to say what human nature is.

It's exasperating when someone says that humans are social creatures as well. One should always be careful when saying "we" "they" "us" and "them" due to the reasoning that we have a choice to be any way we want. Many prefer the life of solitude, like myself. I usually have an agenda that I try and stick to quite closely, so most of the time people just put me out (even close friends); it's hard to make time for them. Being social is something forced upon us by the need to work, hence we will usually have to work with other people.

Edited by the logos on Oct 1, 2007 - 2:00 PM
PeeGee
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: I am omnipresent

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 9
#6 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Oct 5, 2007 - 10:30 AM:

If you somehow believed (I'm being general here) that there's a teleological goal that all things gravitate towards intentionally, then you might believe that there's a natural/unnatural schema to things.

I personally don't believe we have any meaning in existence (Nihilism maybe, but often just pessimism), so I don't subscribe to it. Also I take ideas like evolution, which has no defined final goal, and apply it to our existential meaning (or in this case, lack thereof). I don't consider 'reproducing' to be a valid justification for existence, although I acknowledge it was what we were evolved 'to do' (gene centric view).

One of the main reasons why I think/believe, despite the acceptance that we merely exist to perpetuate our species, we don't have natural/unnatural qualities, is that we're also apparently capable of free will, and so we can opt out of our evolved purpose and do something else. Sure it would cause the extinction of our species in a generation, but that freedom still exists, and thus without a rational justification as to why we ought to reproduce, I cannot label those actions 'unnatural' or 'immoral'.
the logos
Newbie
Avatar

Usergroup: Deactivated By Request
Joined: Oct 28, 2005
Location: Findlay, IL

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 8
#7 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Oct 5, 2007 - 3:08 PM:

I concure PeeGee. Akin to what I said in #5: we have the choice to be any way we desire, even if that may be suicide, and ,therefore, don't have a "nature". This seems obvious to me. We are very self aware and have more of a choice/free will, than any other creatures on this planet. Perhaps people that are less self aware (extraverted) have less free will as they are more prone to become "herdable".
locked
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.