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

[nnmartin]

Some difficult implications....it might be wrong to:
- Allow people with less than stellar mental & physical stature to reproduce.
- Have legal birth control.

If we look at the main clause of the Law again:

-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.

Your first example depends upon the level of physical or mental impairment but in most cases this would be fine.

In your second example the situation is fine if you are talking about contraception. Under normal circumstances means if contraception were not used. (morning after pill does not count as contraception)

 

[Revoltingest]

If we look at the main clause of the Law again:
-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.
Your first example depends upon the level of physical or mental impairment but in most cases this would be fine.

Fine to degrade the gene pool of a species which has improved over hundreds of thousands of years?
No, I'd say that goes against the natural order we've observed.

In your second example the situation is fine if you are talking about contraception. Under normal circumstances means if contraception were not used. (morning after pill does not count as contraception)

But if the natural order is to reproduce as much as possible (which appears to have
been the case in many cultures), then contraception would go against that.

It seems that there could be a dispute about just what the natural order is.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If we look at the main clause of the Law again:

The thing about "natural laws" is that they can't be disobeyed. There are laws which define the universe, earth, etc. It's called physics. Nature doesn't have "laws." There is nothing about nature or "natural order" which compels us to ensure the survival of the species. There are genetic compulsions to reproduce, which include sexual attraction. However, if someone doesn't have a compulsion to reproduce, or to be heterosexual, they aren't violating the "natural order." The "natural order" is chaos. It's the vast majority of species which ever existed dying out. It's survival of the fittest. A great way for "obeying" the "natural law" to reproduce one's genetic material is as many sexual companions as possible and/or serial rape. You want to condone this?

 

[nnmartin]

Revoltingest:

Survival of the species comes into play here.

The natural order allows for contraception so that people can control the population.

 

[nnmartin]

TA great way for "obeying" the "natural law" to reproduce one's genetic material is as many sexual companions as possible and/or serial rape. You want to condone this?

This has already been covered.

Survival of the species can supersede the Order - in this case of rape, Man has banned it due to its negative consequences.

Theoretically though, rape does fit in with the Natural Order as it leads to reproduction (this does not mean we condone it though)

Obey isn't the correct word - it is abide by.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This has already been covered.

Survival of the species can supersede the Order - in this case of rape, Man has banned it due to its negative consequences.

Theoretically though, rape does fit in with the Natural Order as it leads to reproduction (this does not mean we condone it though)

Obey isn't the correct word - it is abide by.

What "natural order?" On what do base the idea that this "order" exists? Is your "natural order" the survival of a species? Because, in the "natural world" this doesn't happen most of the time. Nor is it part of the "natural order" for ANY individual to want to ensure the survival of their species. Rather it's to compete with their species and with others for natural resources. There is no "order" which prevents cannablism, necrophilia, genocide, rape, murder, or any of a long list of things humans in various societies have determined are good or bad. You start out by refering to "natural order" and then exclude nature. Only humans are to be considered with respect to this order. Fine. Homosexuality occurs naturally in humans. In fact, everything humans do by definition they do naturally. And if it violated some "natural order" they couldn't or wouldn't be inclined to do it.

 

[Koldo]

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

Then that is nature manipulating nature.
We see it happening all the time.

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

Then again, are there any objective violations?
What is rare and abnormal is as much part of nature as what is common and normal.

 

[Quintessence]

Good grief. I think we all need to refresh ourselves on the naturalistic fallacy, because sketchy definitions of the "order of nature" aside, it's a pertinent problem to these kinds of arguments.

Ironically, I don't actually disagree with the OP's assertion that the "order of nature" is a good ethical guide. However, the ethical view I draw from observing the "order of nature" is moral nihilism. Stuff happens, and all of it is natural. Anything else is a human projection onto reality, including the committing the naturalistic fallacy.

 

[no-body]

This has already been covered.

Survival of the species can supersede the Order - in this case of rape, Man has banned it due to its negative consequences.

Theoretically though, rape does fit in with the Natural Order as it leads to reproduction (this does not mean we condone it though)
[/I]

If you pick and choose what you see as "natural order" then what is the point?

Not that we shouldn't try to live in harmony with our environment, but your guide sounds like no guide at all when applied.

Sorry but life in terms of human consciousnesses is never concrete black and white it is always nebulous grays.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Natural Order

1) Most species which have existed on this planet have died out.
2) Life in a state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Conclusion

The natural order involves any and all actions which will prevent the propogation of a given species. The natural order is for species to die out, ergo any and all actions which aid in the destruction of the human race is consistent with the natural order.

Commence cannibalism and necrophilia.

 

[McBell]

If you pick and choose what you see as "natural order" then what is the point?

Not that we shouldn't try to live in harmony with our environment, but your guide sounds like no guide at all when applied.

Sorry but life in terms of human consciousnesses is never concrete black and white it is always nebulous grays.

If you look you will see that I pointed this out in post 21.
You will also notice that nnmartin completely ignored that very same post.

It is as if he knows that it is nothing more than self serving bull **** but still wishes to promote it.

 

[Me Myself]

The only things above a "natural order" would be supernatural.

there is no other thing that could be deemed "outside" "natural"

 

[McBell]

The only things above a "natural order" would be supernatural.

there is no other thing that could be deemed "outside" "natural"

Except that the OP is merely trying to set up where they are free to pick and choose at random what is and what is not considered the "natural order".

 

[nnmartin]

There is no "order" which prevents cannablism, necrophilia, genocide, rape, murder, or any of a long list of things humans in various societies have determined are good or bad. You start out by refering to "natural order" and then exclude nature.

Necrophilia does not lead to reproduction so is against the order.

Canabalism is against the order because it causes disease.

The other ones you have mentioned abide by the order yet our notion of survival of the fittest and co-operation make us try to prevent them if possible.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

What disease does cannibalism cause?

 

[Me Myself]

What disease does cannibalism cause?

I think it depends on which parts you eat.

I am almost sure that eating human brains has its particular disease attached to it.

 

[Me Myself]

Necrophilia does not lead to reproduction so is against the order.

Canabalism is against the order because it causes disease.

The other ones you have mentioned abide by the order yet our notion of survival of the fittest and co-operation make us try to prevent them if possible.

Disease is part of nature, and there are a lot of homosexual creatures in nature too, so sex with reproduction is not the only sex that happens in nature.

Rams for example atre among the highest porcentage of homosexuality, farmers can tell you that.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I think it depends on which parts you eat.

I am almost sure that eating human brains has its particular disease attached to it.

People might go for the digestive-system offal, but honestly if you are going to eat another human you're going for muscle, not organ. The thigh, the buttock, the arm, the sweetbreads.

 

[Me Myself]

People might go for the digestive-system offal, but honestly if you are going to eat another human you're going for muscle, not organ. The thigh, the buttock, the arm, the sweetbreads.

Yeah I would guess.

In any case canibalism is seen in nature all the time.

Many species canibalize given the right cicumstances.

 

[nnmartin]

given the right circumstances, humans will resort to cannibalism too but it would still be against the order.