Natural Is Not Good
Posted in Unfounded Speculation
on October 31st, 2011 by
Stephen DeGrace
Topics:
Gay Stuff,
Science,
Politics
There is a series of articles I want to write on a variety of topics, if I ever get around to it, and they all sort of need this article as a basic underpinning. Rather than make the argument over and over, I would like to make it in one place and refer back to it. This point has been made by many other people many times before, but it seems to run very much counter to many popular ideologies, so it bears repeating: just because something is natural, doesn't make it good. A lot of natural things are bad, even evil. And a lot of unnatural things are good. Goodness itself is somewhat unnatural. Basing your ideology on arguments about what is natural and what isn't with the underlying subtext that natural is good is only setting yourself up for a fall as our knowledge about nature evolves.
This argument touches on all kinds of hot buttons I would like to take a look at. Homosexuality, violence, rape, many controversial topics in human nature are couched in terms of what is natural or not. Science and technology, especially in areas touching human health, are steeped in fallacies about nature in terms of public engagement with the issues.
Take homosexuality - if you could prove that human beings were the only animals in which any homosexual behaviours occurred, and that we consciously invented it rather than it being something rooted in human nature, that would absolutely not be the same as proving that it is bad or immoral or wrong or that it had negative consequences. A lot of human inventions, like central heating and indoor plumbing, are unnatural but are mostly very good and beneficial in terms of human health and happiness. Conversely, if we acknowledge the actual truth, that homosexuality is found copiously throughout nature and in fact is something very natural in its roots, would that prove that it is good? Bullying, war, sexual violence and incest, to say nothing of predation, are all found in the natural world and it doesn't make these things good things that we should emulate.
Of course what is natural is relevant to any debate on what is good or bad, it just does not in and of itself decide the argument. Acknowledging the simple truth that a significant percentage of human beings are gay and only sexually interested in their own sex, and that many more are bisexual to some degree and need or can enjoy some sexual contact with their own sex has relevance to what is and isn't humane. Our knowledge of nature tells us that some people need sexual contact with their own sex in order to satisfy their basic urges and be fulfilled, and change is not a humane or viable option for them. In this case, the evil and perverted act is to stigmatize harmless acts and deeply meaningful relationships between consenting adults - homosexuality in and of itself is plainly harmless and even good. It's not like we're running out of people, so the procreative argument doesn't wash. If we had a viable argument that homosexuality somehow harmed anyone then it might be different, but no one has ever made a viable argument that wasn't based on myths and legends. Notice that the argument makes use of our knowledge of nature but hinges on matters of human happiness and suffering, not on whether homosexuality is natural.
On a completely different topic, yet related insofar as it relates to (thankfully, in this case) minority sexual desires, what about pedophilia? If science could ever prove that pedophilia is an organic condition and natural, would that make it good or right to act on those desires? Would it mean that active pedophiles should not be punished? Or does the fact that pedophilia is bad mean that it can't be true that pedophilia is natural? There is a significant intellectual constituency that would argue (if that's the word for what amounts to tactics of intimidation and harassment) the proposition that anything disapproved cannot be natural a priori because it is disapproved. This is a ludicrous and dangerous kind of reason upon which to base one's morality. Indeed, one should argue that pedophilic acts are wrong and must be punished because such acts harm children. It is not clear that a discovery that pedophilia were natural for some individuals would in any way weaken that proposition. Indeed, it might argue for harsher punishments, since rehabilitation would be at best highly problematic and more severe punishments might be needed to serve as an effective deterrent for those organically inclined to offend
On the science and technology front, science is itself a very unnatural way for humans to think - you could think of it in a way that science itself is a technology to circumvent the usual human blind spots and impure motives in order to build an edifice of truth, at least truth insofar as it is accessible to humans. The products of science and technology, like fast long-distance travel, antibiotics, vaccines, corrective lenses and so on certainly are not entirely one sided in their results but are basically good, unnatural or not. We have a natural tendency to think that "natural" ingredients and the pesticides that plants manufacture to defend themselves are somehow safer or better for us than artificial additives or foods raised with the aid of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, when in fact the origin of a chemical substance is irrelevant, a chemical is a chemical. Entirely natural things can be unhealthy or even deadly. And we certainly would not have a prayer to feed seven billion people without unnatural farming techniques (as if any kind of farming could be said to be natural!). Of course, we would not have seven billion people to worry about if we had not found a lot of ways to circumvent nature, so there is that...
Comments:
There are 0 comments on this item. Be the first to comment.
Post a Comment
* Required field, your email will not be posted.