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

[nnmartin]

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?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

"...nature, red in tooth and claw"
"life in a state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Calvin: "so I ask you, a tiger, close to nature, why are we here?"
Hobbes: "we're here to devour each other alive."

Most species that have lived on this planet are extinct. The natural order is "survival of the fittest" at the expense of others.
Also, I have a youngish dog (miniature pinscher/beagle mix) named Chloe. My brother has a much larger basset hound. When the two are together, Chloe (despite being female) will attempt to rape the basset by climbing on his back and humping him as he tries to get away. So I guess my question is, where are you getting your conception of nature?

 

[nnmartin]

The OP is referring to humans only.

Also as a general notice: Please note - This is not some kind of anti-minority thread.

I am after a reasonable debate in order to tackle all the various concepts that 'order of nature' relates to.

thanks

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The OP is referring to humans only.

Then why talk about the order of nature? You opened with a reference to the argument of the type "it's against the order of nature..." Nature means the natural conditions of the environment. How can you refer to the order of nature, but leave out everything in nature except humans? Do you mean the "order" of human nature? Perhaps it would help if you clarify your terms, specifically what you mean by "order" and what you mean by "nature."

 

[nnmartin]

The hostility of raw nature is to be overcome as humans have an inbuilt survival mechanism - survival of the fittest comes into play here as LegionOnaMamoi has mentioned.

This brings us to point 2 - Food.

In ancient times all food and drink was basically natural , then with the increase in the population of Man new cultivation methods were devised.

Today we have all sorts of chemicals and additives in our food and even GM foods, Burger King and the like - these could be said to be against the order of nature.

However, survival of the species wins out here so we must distort the order to survive.

Not necessarily a good thing though.

 

[nnmartin]

How can you refer to the order of nature, but leave out everything in nature except humans? Do you mean the "order" of human nature? Perhaps it would help if you clarify your terms, specifically what you mean by "order" and what you mean by "nature."

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.

 

[Inthedark]

Your OP sounds like a simplified version of Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs:

In order of importance ,1 being the base of the pyramid as it is typically drawn:

1. Psychological - Breathing, food, water, sex, homeostasis, excretion
2. Safety - Security of self, family, morality, family etc
3. Love/Belonging - Friendship, family, sexual intimacy
4. Self esteem - Self esteem, confidence, acheivement, respect of others
5. Self Actualization - Morality, creativity, sponteneity, problem solving

If by "order of nature" you are referring to human nature, I think the heirarchy of needs as above is not far off as a framework. As social animals we place importance on interaction and affirmation once basic needs are taken care of.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

Why "must" they? Do you mean in order to survive there are certain things which all species must do or they will die?

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

Ok, but i'm not clear what you mean by "natural laws" or how these might be determined. Clearly you aren't talking about the laws of physics.

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

What laws?

 

[nnmartin]

The Laws that enabled Man to come into existence.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The Laws that enabled Man to come into existence.

Evolution?

 

[nnmartin]

Your OP sounds like a simplified version of Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs:

If by "order of nature" you are referring to human nature, I think the heirarchy of needs as above is not far off as a framework. As social animals we place importance on interaction and affirmation once basic needs are taken care of.

thanks for the post, I take it as a compliment to be compared to Maslow even in simplified form

Actually, I am not really talking about 'human nature' here.

No, I am referring to the order of nature which has been created by the Laws of the Universe.

Humans fit in to the bigger picture through forces unknown by science.

Most natural things have some kind of purpose and function and operate in harmony with each other due to the guided evolutionary process.

On a more scientific level we can see what happens when these laws are not abided by.

for example incest - this usually leads to children with abnormalities.

There are many examples one could give here.

And in due course, no doubt - many more will come forth.

 

[Inthedark]

thanks for the post, I take it as a compliment to be compared to Maslow even in simplified form

Actually, I am not really talking about 'human nature' here.

No, I am referring to the order of nature which has been created by the Laws of the Universe.

Humans fit in to the bigger picture through forces unknown by science.

Most natural things have some kind of purpose and function and operate in harmony with each other due to the guided evolutionary process.

On a more scientific level we can see what happens when these laws are not abided by.

for example incest - this usually leads to children with abnormalities.

There are many examples one could give here.

And in due course, no doubt - many more will come forth.

It was an observation and it certainly wasn't meant to be critical in any way nnmartin.

Incest is a choice, an individual excorcising free will, usually at the expense of anothers. The abnormalities you speak of will be taken care of by the process of evolution, unless attributes can facilitate survival, in which case they might be passed on I suppose.

Evolution is blind

It finds its equillibrium at the expense of the weakest link. Our advantage is that we are concious of it and can choose to behave in a certain way to make a particular outcome more likely.

 

[nnmartin]

do you agree then that 'things against the order of nature', when done by choice are wrong?

Some things worse than others for sure (as in incest, bestiality) and some can be tolerated as they are usually by-products of something else.

but in general I think that order of nature in general is a pretty solid platform to base one's morals on.

the other two minor points of Health and Medicine can also be said to be fine in todaý's society due to the survival of the fittest clause.

 

[nnmartin]

Incest is a choice, an individual excorcising free will, usually at the expense of anothers. The abnormalities you speak of will be taken care of by the process of evolution, unless attributes can facilitate survival, in which case they might be passed on I suppose.

I have a feeling that there is some kind of passing on happening here as incest still occurs.

But the fact that it produces abnormalities is a clear sign that nature is saying no.

Evolution is blind

It still has to abide by the Order of Nature though.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It still has to abide by the Order of Nature though.

You still haven't really said what this is, or what your criteria are for establishing what it is.

 

[nnmartin]

well, there are two ways of looking at it really.

Religious and Non-Religious.

I imagine most people are familiar with the religious idea so I'll skip that part for now.

Non-Religious though is basically to do with evolution, biology and ultimately the laws of physics.

Now it's my experience in life that natural products are usually better for one and more enjoyable.

Natural farm grown food compared to Macdonalds for instance. - this is an example of why the law is correct.

Now, evolution creates a human's body to function in a certain way

When this is interfered with problems arise. (example given so far as incest, could be drug abuse or egomania though)

The Order of Nature refers to the natural rules and laws that evolution had to follow for us to be what we are. Even though it is supposedly blind it still has a certain path that it cannot deviate from.

This path maintains order.

The Order of Nature essentially is the Path.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Non-Religious though is basically to do with evolution, biology and ultimately the laws of physics.

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.

Now it's my experience in life that natural products are usually better for one and more enjoyable.

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."
Natural farm grown food compared to Macdonalds for instance.

Evolution creates a human's body to function in a certain way and also with a sex division.

When this is interfered with problems arise.

The Order of Nature is the natural rules and laws that evolution had to follow for us to be what we are. Even though it is supposedly blind it still has a certain path that it cannot deviate from.

But that path depends on the environment. Evolution involves fitness in an environment. Which means that surviving species possess traits selected for that environment. However, you stated that we were not to involve anything outside of humanity to speak about the "order" of nature. How is this possible if your definition of this order involves the environment, which then involves other animals and life apart from humans.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Posting on the internet is against the order of nature.

 

[McBell]

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?

What I find most interesting when people try the whole "it is unnatural" ploy is that 99.999% of the time, they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

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".

 

[Gjallarhorn]

How can anything be against nature if we are all natural?

Unless someone has usurped the laws of physics...again...