Jul 14 2008
The Problematic Nature of Naturalistic Justifications
During my studies I was introduced to a very simplistic argument that was attempted by individuals trying to maintain a certain concept of universal moral theory.
Although a seemingly simplistic justification method it in a sense seems sensible. The belief simply states ‘What is moral is what is natural’.
I think this concept appeals to people because of its use of the term natural. The word is heavily loaded with positive connotations. But we must remember the black death as well was just a part of nature so this connotation if used as an overlaying principle is simply nonsense.
I felt it would be useful to explain the fallacy of the argument at this point in order to assist those that get ‘wrapped’ up in its connotation’s heavy guise.
Okay let’s start, Ill break the steps down of the arguments fallacy in point step form for ease of explanation.
P1- In order to determine what is morally right we must look at beings in nature.
P2- As human beings are beings in nature we can look at what they do to determine what is morally right.
P3- Human beings do everything and anything naturally.
C- Therefore anything and everything a human being does is moral.
This is obviously nonsense, it is simply an enabling principle (which in itself may not be a bad thing). But what is a bad thing in when individuals use this justification in a short sited limited manner. To say things such as ‘it is immoral to be homosexual as its unnatural’ and ‘it is immoral for different races to breed with eachother as its unnatural’.
Truly this is nonsensical. In actuality when heterosexual people say things such as ‘its not natural to be homosexual’ what they really mean, or rather what is the most they can fairly mean, is that it is unnatural for ‘me’. In actuality it is the equivalent of a homosexual saying ‘ its not natural to be heterosexual’ and as such has just as much merit.
For an example of this justification being used incorrectly you can visit this site which has a good example of the view being used offhandedly to violate individuals rights.
6 Responses to “The Problematic Nature of Naturalistic Justifications”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not A Member? Register for Free!
“In actuality when heterosexual people say things such as ‘its not natural to be homosexual’ what they really mean, or rather what is the most they can fairly mean, is that it is unnatural for ‘me’. In actuality it is the equivalent of a homosexual saying ‘ its not natural to be heterosexual’ and as such has just as much merit.”
I think you have said it better than anyone could. Thank you.
hmm… by this reasoning…
another man looks at my girlfriend, so; look to nature
look to nature, many animals will viciously attack and even go so far as to kill competitors for their mate. thus,
it is completely moral for me to kill said man.
yup, definitely flawed logic.
There are so many ways to tackle the naturalistic justification angle, anyone could do it, really.
Even nature itself can be pretty messed up from the perspective of the morals we are taught, with or without religion. There are animals that kill each other or themselves during- or after mating, bugs that are tortured to death while being eaten by their predators, animals that shoot their stomachs out and dissolve their prey alive, and vultures (figurative or literal) watching it all happen from above, and swooping down to loot whatever’s left.
Well you and I have gone over this, but there are no morals. Everything is relative, defined by (in our case) what the masses determine is “acceptable behavior”. Everything is just as moral as as everything else, it’s just that society has imposed moral views on us.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say there are no morals. But I would say I think, as of now, a self constructed moral system is necessary to generate these morals.
“Self constructed moral system” says it perfectly. It is my belief that what is right for one person is only right for that person. If two people believe the same thing to be right, it is purely coincidental at the level people can see. I don’t think the “rightness” or “wrongness” of an action, ie. morality, can be defined in any written or spoken language. The feeling caused by the action is what creates it’s actual moral bearing. So at the highest level, I believe an action which one recieves a positive, loving feeling about is “morally” right and vice versa. So when a person is connected with who they are and at peace, they will always be guided by their feelings to the morally correct action, which is what the following post’s Llllllllama quote says more or less.