Let's Get Rid of 'Nature'

Let's Get Rid of 'Nature'

I want to put an end to this argument, since I’m seeing it frequently touted and pointed to and nodded at like a mantra. Phrase it however you want: “it’s natural”, “it’s a biological urge”, or the corollary, “it’s unnatural”, “not even animals do it”, etc. There are variations - but the essential theme is to line up a (moral) claim with something called “nature”.


A classic example that’s making the rounds – that I’ll be writing about later – is the idea of parenthood, thanks to Jessica Valenti’s new book. Many have told me and continue to maintain that it’s “perfectly natural” to have/want children; that it’s the most “powerful biological urge” (how this measures up against starvation or thirst, I’m not sure). Because of this power and potency, it’s moral to breed.

However, this is not true: that’s an explanation for why breeding occurs, not what makes breeding moral! People move from a description to a normative claim: just because it is the case that things occur – for example, racism, sexism, violence – is not a reason to think it moral or not worth questioning or criticising. All we’ve been given is a description of the situation, not what makes the situation moral.

There are also more pressing concerns in terms of this thinking. Firstly, it’s highly selective. By defending this position, we are being dishonest thinkers because we’re only reporting one side, namely the “good” part: rainbows, cute animals, having children (I guess), and so on. We are ignoring the other: diseases, earthquakes, predation, and so on, which are awful occurrences and natural. To be accurate and scientific, we must have a broader scope in our thinking. Otherwise we’re selectively choosing one type of occurrence, making the whole framework of ‘natural’ seem entirely preferable.

If we align ourselves to nature, does it mean eating our young, killing violently, and so on, just because it occurs in nature? Why ignore this category of natural occurrences but embrace the other “good” one? We must know the broader framework to make accurate assessments. Selective thinking like this is unscientific and unhelpful: choosing to view “natural” only in terms of what is “good” is selective.

Secondly, it also becomes redundant.

If “natural” is “good”, what use does it serve as a moral rubric? When people say “homosexuality is unnatural”, they are saying “homosexuality is wrong”. But how does that help the discussion? “It’s wrong because it’s unnatural” is the same as saying “it’s wrong because it’s wrong”. That doesn’t tell us why it’s wrong: it’s again “a description” – a false one in this case since, since, as I indicated previously, there are 1,500 animal species that engage in homosexual behaviour.  The assertion becomes a tautology. But just showing that a supposedly unnatural act occurs in nature does not make it moral either! The entire point is to get rid of linking so tightly “moral” and “natural”: whether something does or does not occur in nature doesn’t aid our deciding whether that act is moral.

After all, wearing glasses, building hospitals and using crutches don’t occur in nature – are these to be considered “wrong” based on that category? If they’re not, why use the category of “unnatural” or even “natural” at all when discussing morality? 

We need to stop this appeal to nature in our thinking, in our application to actions, and in our moral deliberations. There are better, reasonable and, indeed, evidence-based justifications for these, which better serve us than mere appeals to this thing called “nature”.

Nature is just a description of things that occur “naturally”. Presumably this means “without interference from humans”, but why remove humans from the natural? We’re as natural as daffodils – with which we share genetic ancestors. What exactly is unnatural? Cars? Plastic? The Internet? I see no difference between a beaver’s dam and the Internet: both are made using materials from the Earth. Sure iPods don’t grow on trees, but like beavers’ dams, they have origins in raw, “natural” materials. At what magical point from the mining of metals to downloading the latest Linkin Park song does your iPod become “unnatural”?

‘Nature’ to a large extent  is an entirely useless notion in moral thought that is high time we got rid of.

Update: I originally wrote about "otters' dams" but reader Thom Shanken kindly corrected my idiocy.

Image Credit: Biogradska gora/Wikipedia (source)

Golden blood: The rarest blood in the world

We explore the history of blood types and how they are classified to find out what makes the Rh-null type important to science and dangerous for those who live with it.

What is the rarest blood type?

Abid Katib/Getty Images
Surprising Science
  • Fewer than 50 people worldwide have 'golden blood' — or Rh-null.
  • Blood is considered Rh-null if it lacks all of the 61 possible antigens in the Rh system.
  • It's also very dangerous to live with this blood type, as so few people have it.
Keep reading Show less

How space debris created the world’s largest garbage dump

Since 1957, the world's space agencies have been polluting the space above us with countless pieces of junk, threatening our technological infrastructure and ability to venture deeper into space.

Space debris orbiting Earth

Framestock via Adobe Stock
Technology & Innovation
  • Space debris is any human-made object that's currently orbiting Earth.
  • When space debris collides with other space debris, it can create thousands more pieces of junk, a dangerous phenomenon known as the Kessler syndrome.
  • Radical solutions are being proposed to fix the problem, some of which just might work. (See the video embedded toward the end of the article.)
Keep reading Show less

Looking for something? A team at MIT develop a robot that sees through walls

It uses radio waves to pinpoint items, even when they're hidden from view.

TORU YAMANAKA/AFP via Getty Images
Technology & Innovation
In recent years, robots have gained artificial vision, touch, and even smell.
Keep reading Show less
Quantcast