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)

LinkedIn meets Tinder in this mindful networking app

Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.

Getty Images
Sponsored
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.

No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.

Keep reading Show less

People who engage in fat-shaming tend to score high in this personality trait

A new study explores how certain personality traits affect individuals' attitudes on obesity in others.

Pixabay
Mind & Brain
  • The study compared personality traits and obesity views among more than 3,000 mothers.
  • The results showed that the personality traits neuroticism and extraversion are linked to more negative views and behaviors related to obesity.
  • People who scored high in conscientiousness are more likely to experience "fat phobia.
Keep reading Show less

4 anti-scientific beliefs and their damaging consequences

The rise of anti-scientific thinking and conspiracy is a concerning trend.

Moon Landing Apollo
popular
  • Fifty years later after one of the greatest achievements of mankind, there's a growing number of moon landing deniers. They are part of a larger trend of anti-scientific thinking.
  • Climate change, anti-vaccination and other assorted conspiratorial mindsets are a detriment and show a tangible impediment to fostering real progress or societal change.
  • All of these separate anti-scientific beliefs share a troubling root of intellectual dishonesty and ignorance.
Keep reading Show less

Reigning in brutality - how one man's outrage led to the Red Cross and the Geneva Conventions

The history of the Geneva Conventions tells us how the international community draws the line on brutality.

Napoleon III at the Battle of Solferino. Painting by Adolphe Yvon. 1861.
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Henry Dunant's work led to the Red Cross and conventions on treating prisoners humanely.
  • Four Geneva Conventions defined the rules for prisoners of war, torture, naval and medical personnel and more.
  • Amendments to the agreements reflect the modern world but have not been ratified by all countries.
Keep reading Show less