Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.

Appeal to nature

From Anarchopedia
Revision as of 17:01, 11 February 2011 by Anarchangel (Talk | contribs) (Cats)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article contains content from Wikipedia
An article on this subject has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/
Appeal to nature
Current versions of the GNU FDL article on WP may contain information useful to the improvement of this article 		WP+
NO
DEL

An appeal to nature is a form of Wikipedia:argument that depends on an understanding of Wikipedia:nature as a source of intelligibility for its claims, and which relies on the Wikipedia:normative or ethical (WP) content of that understanding for its cogency and/or validity.

The most common form of 'nature' in this context, by sheer volume of occurrence in history and up to the present day, is as a natural state of the universe, which may, due to its anthrocentric viewpoint, be contiguous with a concept of the natural state of humankind. It may also be contiguous with concepts of a natural rather than a chosen morality. Most erroneously, religions may see an indisputable natural morality expressed in their dogma.

In more recent times, particularly the late 20th Century onward, it has been used also to denote organic or naturally occurring things as opposed to ones created by humans.

Fallacious arguments

An appeal to nature can sometimes be considered a Wikipedia:fallacy of relevance consisting of a claim that something is good or right (WP) because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural or Wikipedia:artificial. In this type of Wikipedia:informal fallacy, nature automatically implies an ideal or desired state of being,[1] a state of how things were, should be, or how they are normally: in this sense an appeal to nature may resemble an Wikipedia:appeal to tradition.

"Natural" is a Wikipedia:loaded term when it is equated with Wikipedia:normality. In Wikipedia:ancient Greece, the Wikipedia:Sophists were the first to challenge “the appeal to nature [which] tended to mean an appeal to the nature of man treated as a source for norms of conduct. To Greeks this appeal was not very novel. It represented a conscious probing and exploration into an area wherein, according to their whole tradition of thought, lay the true source for norms of conduct.”[2]

Generic forms of an appeal to nature are:

"X is Y because it is natural." (Y being a desirable property)
"X is Z because it is unnatural." (Z being an undesirable property)

Or simply when a desirable or undesirable property is implied:

"X is natural."
"X is unnatural."

Evolution and Social Darwinism

The presence of this fallacy is manifest in the logic behind certain objections to Wikipedia:evolution, specifically objections to evolution's morality. The argument assumes that if behaviors such as Wikipedia:polygamy, Wikipedia:infanticide and violence and war are shown to be naturally occurring behaviours, then they must be accepted as a fait accompli. This misunderstanding has fueled some animosity towards evolutionary biologists, for example Wikipedia:sociobiology was criticized from this angle in the latter half of the twentieth century. (See also Wikipedia:sociobiological theories of rape.) Others, while not believing 'natural' to be 'right' themselves, assume that those advancing evolutionary theories do. This objection should not be confused with the closely related criticism that biologists in these fields are suggesting Wikipedia:genetic determinism. This fallacy can be found in some of the less convincing arguments for the legalization of marijuana or other drugs such as peyote. This excludes, of course, legalization arguments that use the methods of Wikipedia:biochemistry and Wikipedia:medical science to weigh the effects of marijuana and peyote.

Some have argued that biological findings regarding evolution and Wikipedia:human nature have helped propel the Wikipedia:political right into power. Biologist Wikipedia:John Maynard Smith replied to such criticism with the question "What should we have done, fiddled the equations?"[3] The selfish behavior seen in nature is important in understanding why we act the way we do, whether it leads to a belief that this is how we should act, or as a warning of how we should not behave. One of the main themes Wikipedia:Richard Dawkins pursues in Wikipedia:The Selfish Gene is that "we should not derive our values from Darwinism, unless it is with a negative sign". He points out that a society that uses nature as a moral compass would be "a very nasty society in which to live". He makes the point, however, that there are many people who simply cannot discriminate between a statement of what is and what ought to be.[4]

Natural vs manmade

There are some minor points to consider in regards to the use of the word "natural" to distinguish from things created by humans. None of these are as critical a flaw of logic as the presumption of a natural state is.

Take for example labels with the phrase "all-natural" on alternative medicines (WP) and herbal remedies.[5] Notwithstanding the benefits of some or even most herbal remedies, the fact that something is natural does not necessarily guarantee that it is beneficial, or even safe (hemlock, Wikipedia:nightshade, Wikipedia:belladonna and Wikipedia:poisonous mushrooms, for example are quite dangerous)

Counter-indications, too, are inherent but not implied by this use of 'natural'. Cocaine, for instance, is an "all-natural" medicine derived from the coca plant, and which was prescribed for many years for everything from chest colds to depression, yet it is addictive and has deleterious side effects

"Nature" and "natural" have vague definitions and thus the claim that something is natural will not be correct by everyone's definition; an example would be the claim of foods, such as "all-natural" wheat, which is usually a hybridised plant that was bred by artificial selection. Some natural things have undesirable properties, for example: old age, sickness, and death. Conversely, modern medicines might be considered unnatural, (because they are manufactured rather than found in nature), nonetheless, they cause very desirable effects and their dosage can be controlled with precision.


See also


References

  1. ↑ (1840) Woman's rights and duties considered with relation to their influence on society and on her own condition, by a woman, London: John W. Parker.
  2. ↑ Saunders, Jason Lewis (26 October 2008). Western Philosophical Schools and Doctrines: Ancient and Medieval Schools: Sophists: Particular Doctrines: Theoretical issues.. URL accessed 07 February 2011.
  3. ↑ also Dawkins (2006) letter in New Scientist
  4. ↑ Dawkins, R. 2006. The Selfish Gene, 30th Anniversary edition. pp. xiv, 3.
  5. ↑ Baggini, Julian (2004). Making sense: philosophy behind the headlines, Oxford University Press.

External Links

Template:Red Herring Fallacy[[Category:

Retrieved from "http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?title=Appeal_to_nature&oldid=47209"