Is 'the order of nature' a valid argument? - I say yes.

[McBell]

The OP is referring to humans only.

How is that "natural"?
To remove humans from nature then try to claim something humans do is not natural?

You have merely demonstrated that the the whole OP is nothing more than self serving bull ****.

 

[Me Myself]

We CANNOT act out of the natural "order".

Why? because you note the natural order from nature and we ARE nature.


That´s point one. Then on, every specie has it´s particularities. What is natural for the jirafe is not natural for the human. There are some difference, but I think morality is better coming from emphaty and compasion that are the actual builders of our morality anyways than from what we think is the "order" of nature.

We are the order of nature. The good and the bad.

We direct our nature. When a bad person does something horrible to subjugate a good eprson, that is the order of nature, but it wouldn´t necesarily be moral, so I think that human morality should begoverned by higher standards: those of compassion and emphaty governing as much of our actions as posible. That´s how we reach good morality.

 

[shawn001]

natural order - the physical universe considered as an orderly system subject to natural (not human or supernatural) laws.


The there are the physical laws of nature.

Like Thermodynamics, Electromagnetism, gravity.

 

[Willamena]

Out of curiosity, what is (or goes) 'against the order of nature" in regard to shelter?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Out of curiosity, what is (or goes) 'against the order of nature" in regard to shelter?

All of it, I would think.

When it comes to weather, the natural order of things is "when it rains, you get wet."

 

[nnmartin]

But the "laws" of evolution need not be followed. There is nothing in any "laws" of evolution which forces me to reproduce so that my genetic line continues. Nor is such a drive necessarily something to base a moral system on. After all, a common method of ensuring one's genetic line continued has been for millenia the rape of women by soldiers during war.

The law does not state that you have to reproduce.

Rape is not necessarily against the Law of Nature in most cases.

But humans feel the need at times to overcome the hostility of natural law.

Alcohol, opium, and Hemlock are all "natural." The first two one might consider enjoyable. Tylenol, antibiotics, sunscreen, and so on are usually considered "unnatural." Yet they are much better for one then Hemlock. Perhaps if you provided a clearer definition of what you mean by "natural" and "better."

Just because it is natural does not mean that it is good for you.

But for things that are, then natural products far outweigh artificial ones.

As in the case I gave already - ie: farm food compared to MacDonalds

Or perhaps a natural herb compared to Valium.

But that path depends on the environment. Evolution involves fitness in an environment. Which means that surviving species possess traits selected for that environment.

The environment may cause some adaptations but does not change the fact that humans were fundamentally designed to be the way they are and to act and behave in accordance with how nature programmed them.

 

[nnmartin]

Posting on the internet is against the order of nature.

No , it is not.

Man was given a mind of high intelligence with which he is expected to create stimulus.

This is part of the Natural Order as it give rises to furthering the species.

 

[nnmartin]

For example, YOU try to claim that homosexuality is unnatural yet it is seen through out nature.

So the fact of the matter is that you are not actually claiming it is "unnatural", you are merely claiming it is "icky".

Where is this coming from?

Where have I mentioned the H word?

Where have I said anything is 'icky'?

Stop being hysterical.

 

[gnomon]

Different animals have different rules of order into which they must fit.

We are dealing with the natural laws of humanity here - so analogies with the animal kingdom are out.

What we want to look it is how man should operate and function within the intended laws of the Earth.

You are not looking for a rational debate.

 

[nnmartin]

Out of curiosity, what is (or goes) 'against the order of nature" in regard to shelter?

Modern houses and buildings are against the order of nature.

These need to be made though in order to overcome the hostility of nature and to ensure survival.

However, this is only due to overcrowding and in ideal circumstances humans would build dwellings out of natural products as the Law intended.

 

[Me Myself]

Modern houses and buildings are against the order of nature.

In what way?

We are of nature and we made them with things we found in nature.

What is it in my house that has come from anything supernatural?

 

[no-body]

What we see as "Chaos" and "Evil" is part of nature too. Objectively there is no "outside of nature" it is all human illusion. We want to apply our biases towards the universe and then try to fool ourselves into thinking the reverse is true.

 

[Koldo]

Quite often the term 'it's against the order of nature' is used in a debate - and usually dismissed by many almost straight away.

I would say though, that if you think about it , it's actually one of the best moral guides we have.

...

To me some things are clearly against the order - bestiality, pedophilia , incest and necrophilia for instance.

This is the problem.
When this sort of argument comes up, the definition of what is 'against the order of nature' is highly personal and subjective.

On a broad sense, one could say that we, as being part of nature, can not do anything that is against the order of nature.

 

[nnmartin]

No , because if we interfere with and manipulate nature to any realistic degree it is going against the order.

Violations are only allowed when survival of the race is at stake.

 

[nnmartin]

In what way?

We are of nature and we made them with things we found in nature.

What is it in my house that has come from anything supernatural?

It doesn't have to be supernatural but just not naturally occurring or intended.

 

[Me Myself]

It doesn't have to be supernatural but just not naturally occurring or intended.

We humans are part of nature and we intended houses the way they are.

That makes them natural.

 

[nnmartin]

No, because the materials used are man-made and artificial.

Adding chemicals etc.. interferes with the natural system.

You only need to look at the environmental damage caused by many buildings, industrial complexes, dams etc.. to see this.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

... nature is made of chemicals ... you are made of chemicals, your food is made of chemicals, clouds are made of chemicals... please be a bit more specific...

Are you perhaps talking about synthetic enhancements for a specific purpose? In that case, mortar is such an enhancement for the purposes of making more durable structures, so is twine used to assist in bundling wheat or a piece of flint fashioned to be used as a knife. All of these are deviations from their prior state done to achieve particular purposes; to achieve things that we wanted them to. Is that against this 'natural order'?

 

[Me Myself]

No, because the materials used are man-made and artificial.

What if they are man made? Are the bridges done by beavers unnatural? no, because beavers are natural and the things they do are done with natural materials, so they are natural.

Adding chemicals etc.. interferes with the natural system.

From where do this materials come from? Didn´t they come from nature?

You get some elements from nature or some other stuff from nature and create something completely new. It is still a natural process because we are part of nature using nature to change nature.

It´s nature changing itself.

You only need to look at the environmental damage caused by many buildings, industrial complexes, dams etc.. to see this.

If we damage "nature" that is only a natural being using natural proccesses to damage nature.

Nature damaging itself.

Not that we really are damaging "nature". We are damaging life as known today, but if nature gets tired and gets rid of all of us like a bad flu, it will stillbe here the same way it was before us.

We are a natural processs that as any natural process can hinder and damage other natural processes and can be subjected to end in any given moment.

99.9*% of species in planet are existgished, and that was nature. We are only another way in which nature is extinguishing stuff.

 

[Revoltingest]

Quite often the term 'it's against the order of nature' is used in a debate - and usually dismissed by many almost straight away.
I would say though, that if you think about it , it's actually one of the best moral guides we have.
Who has an issue with this?
Generally speaking I think we can break down the 'order' argument into 4 main sections.
1. Reproduction
2. Food
3. Shelter
4. Health
The most commonly argued over one is surely number 1 as this deals with a lot of key issues.
To me some things are clearly against the order - bestiality, pedophilia , incest and necrophilia for instance.
There are many negative issues surrounding these activities but when we think about 'order of nature' concerns the clear factor is 'lack of normal reproductive ability'.
In a phrase I would say that an activity related to reproduction is against the order of nature if:
The action does not, under normal circumstances, lead to healthy reproduction in a linear fashion.
This can be discussed in more detail as there are quite a few issues involved here.
I will deal with the other 3 categories in due course.
any views or questions?

This perspective seems to presume that anything which doesn't further the goals 1 thru 4 would be immoral.
Some difficult implications....it might be wrong to:
- Allow people with less than stellar mental & physical stature to reproduce.
- Support those who cannot support themselves.
- Have legal birth control.
- Allow people to do anything which risks their health, eg, smoke, drink, drive fast cars.
To oppose these actions (generally accepted as moral) would meet a whole lotta resistance.
Goals 1-4 seem fine goals, but I see no reason to say that conflicting goals are necessarily immoral or any such thing.