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

[Viker]

Is cutting one's hair and putting on a pair of pants natural or even necessary? What does someone's sexual preferences have to do with the natural order of things? In the order, they are as trivial as what church a man goes to or what brand of tooth brush he uses.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

Ah, I see, so only things that you find objectionable are against the "order of nature." Is transparent rationalization of bigotry against the natural order?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

You use the phrases "order of nature" and "best moral guides" as though they are related. There are no morals in nature, only instinct. Morality is a Human condition, not animal. While humanity is a part of nature it is generally understood that what makes us human is separate from the instincts of the animal kingdom. So, to me, your suggestion that natural instincts are separated into orders and can be used as moral guidlines is incorrect.

 

[McBell]

Not so - it really is a logical way of looking at things.

What you are trying to pass off as the "natural order" is neither logical or natural.
It is nothing more than your sad attempt at being able to claim that anything you dislike is "against the natural order".
Nothing more.

The overall Order pertains to how nature would be without being interfered with by Man and his selfish desires.

Yet you claim selfish desires as being part of the "natural order".
So you have done nothing but try to pick and choose what you do and do not like as being natural unnatural.

Thus making it nothing but a self serving pile of bull ****.

It is easy to pick holes in the Order by coming up with vague analogies and out of context situations but the overall system is generally straightforward - similar to The Bible in many ways.

YOU have poked more holes in your "order" by randomly picking and choosing than everyone else combined.

 

[McBell]

Man is meant to act and function within certain parameters - incorporating nature at the same time.

Really?
Says who?
So far all you have done is show just how self serving the whole "order" actually is.

The Order has created a body that cannot deal with consuming gasoline thus doing so has negative consequences.

Anther example I would like to mention is the absurd notion of a vegetarian feeding his pet dog a meat-free diet.

This is also a violation as dogs are carnivores.

An example of Man being selfish.

Selfishness leads to negative consequences.

Here we see again where you have just randomly chosen something to be against the order.

 

[idav]

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?

So reproduction is not in the order of nature if we aren't able to reproduce. This doesn't fit with food either. You would be implying that we would be going against nature if we are eating even though we are not hungry. Everything we do is natural as we are of nature. There is no order to go for or against when it comes to nature.

 

[Inthedark]

Everything within the laws of physics, i.e. not supernatural (read myth), is bound by nature, period. We are winging our way to heat death within the parameters of the laws of physics. I don't see how furthering this discussion is enriching our lives? It seems to be moving in circles.

Paul

 

[Revoltingest]

Everything within the laws of physics, i.e. not supernatural (read myth), is bound by nature, period. We are winging our way to heat death within the parameters of the laws of physics. I don't see how furthering this discussion is enriching our lives? It seems to be moving in circles.

Silly & pointless discussions about the natural order are part of the natural order.

 

[nnmartin]

Homosexuality appears to be more 'natural' than contraception.
The former is observed throughout nature, & therefore part of the natural order.
The latter is a recent invention man to circumvent the natural order, & therefore an abomination.

Homosexuality is merely a by-product of the Order.

When you say 'observed throughout nature' then I take it you are referring to animals. Animal behaviour is not necessarily a guide for human behaviour.

Contraception adheres to the main clause of the Order so it is acceptable.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Homosexuality is merely a by-product of the Order.

When you say 'observed throughout nature' then I take it you are referring to animals. Animal behaviour is not necessarily a guide for human behaviour.

Contraception adheres to the main clause of the Order so it is acceptable.

What is this "Order" you speak of and how is it any different than natural law? I think you're just turning your oughts into ises.

 

[nnmartin]

You use the phrases "order of nature" and "best moral guides" as though they are related. There are no morals in nature, only instinct. Morality is a Human condition, not animal. . So, to me, your suggestion that natural instincts are separated into orders and can be used as moral guidlines is incorrect.

You are correct there.

The Order does not necessarily act as a moral guide for humanity.

But it should be abided by as closely as possible.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

You are correct there.

The Order does not necessarily act as a moral guide for humanity.

But it should be abided by as closely as possible.

So you're saying we should ignore our humanity which is where our morality comes from in favor of our animal insticts? Kind of going backwards don't you think?

 

[nnmartin]

they should be blended together.

Animal instincts have precedence but morality needs to guide them.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

they should be blended together.

Animal instincts have precedence but morality needs to guide them.

Thats some scary stuff man.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Not only that.... it would suggest if your instincts tell you to jump a child that there is nothing wrong with that, or incest, bestiality, necrophilia, murder etc... if your instincts tell you to do it, then do it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

there are others which I may get into at a later time.

Rooves? Eyeglasses? Motorized transport?

 

[nnmartin]

Informed: not at all .

morality and survival of the species can, at times, over-ride the Order as I've already stated.

 

[McBell]

You are correct there.

The Order does not necessarily act as a moral guide for humanity.

But it should be abided by as closely as possible.

So you're saying we should ignore our humanity which is where our morality comes from in favor of our animal insticts? Kind of going backwards don't you think?

Actually, he is creating a loop hole to be able to pick and choose amongst his ALREADY cherry picked "natural order" what is and what is not "moral".

 

[Meow Mix]

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?

With respect to #1, your argument AFAICT is that male reproductive organs are "supposed to" go with female reproductive organs for reproduction; and it seems to me from this post and others of yours that you believe that's the "order of nature" and to do anything else with those organs is somehow unnatural. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)

If that's really what you're saying, though, then I think almost everything we do is in trouble: ears aren't naturally designed to have earphones in them, for instance. Is that unnatural and abomination, then?

I'm a mute: I have to use paper or electronics to communicate. Is that unnatural and an abomination?

Why do you assign a moral value to consenting adults having sex just because they're the same gender?

The moral value in pedophilia, beastiality and necrophilia is all related to the notion of consent (rather, the lack of it), for instance.

Where are you getting a moral value one way or another with consenting men with men or consenting women with women?

 

[nnmartin]

no , that's not the same thing because the earphones are just enhancing an attribute that was meant to be (ie:listening).

Ears were designed for listening.