NSFW Why do we take: 'It's natural' to be a good thing? Does morality exist in nature?

[Forever Sleep]

Have you noticed it before? That maybe we all will excuse something borderline unpleasant or immoral as being ok because 'it's natural. It's just nature.'

Why do we see nature as necessarily good though? It certainly isn't always moral. A praying mantis slowly devouring its live prey can't exactly be optimal. A fly that has evolved to survive by laying its eggs into other animals eye sockets- sometimes blinding the animal in the process is absolutely horrific.

It's especially confusing when we use it to justify human behaviour. The whole point about humans- that we like to pride ourselves on, is that we are able to rationalise and not take actions which deliberately hurt others.

So- defending questionable behaviour as being 'natural' is neither a compliment- It's assuming that person is so utterly driven by their instincts, that they can't see beyond them. Neither does it justify it- because we are beings that are capable of rational thought and indeed can consider the impact of our actions on others.

I guess it is more permissable in the natural world- because presumably, animals have less of a sense of right and wrong.

I suppose the slightly suspect feelings humans may have are 'natural' in the instinctual, unconscious sense but, our actions are tempered most of the time. So, we aren't entirely 'natural' beings in the first place. We may have 'natural' wants but we temper them with morals. I suppose morals don't really exist in the natural world- that I can think of. More that every creature will try to do whatever it can get away with.

 

[Kurwenal]

Morals are, to my understanding, a human construct. But we remain, ultimately, animals at our core. There is a struggle within us to reconcile what is natural and what is moral.

I'm vegan. I actually don't tend to advertise it (got to fight the stereotype!), or bring it up unless relevant, but in this case, I'd like to raise an example relevant to this.

My personal belief is that humans do not need to enslave, exploit and murder animals for our own benefit. If I happen to mention to someone that I'm vegan, a common argument is that eating other animals is 'natural'. By logic, this makes sense. A lion's nature, for example, is to kill prey to provide itself with sustenance. That is natural. But we have developed a code of ethics, a system of morals, that defines our point of view on existence and our place in it. I don't believe that the animal husbandry industry is in any way natural. The end result, that people can eat animals, may be considered natural. But the methods employed to get to that point, are, in my opinion, not natural and not moral.

However, it is the status quo. And the status quo is a very, very powerful tool. It is what defines morals. And it is what defines what humans perceive to be 'natural'. People, broadly speaking, don't like the status quo to change. We see so much pushback, especially in the 21st century, against ideals that can give better and happier lives to a large number of people, without harming those who push back in any way whatsoever. They say it's not natural. But they claim that things that also are not natural, are in fact natural (see above). It has become a meaningless word, a word that people can bandy about when it suits their weak arguments.

The entirety of modern human society, ultimately, is not natural. Humans are more detached from nature now than at any point in history prior to this. Nature isn't moral, as you say. And humans are caught between their primal origins, where once they did know, live and breathe nature, and the complex, often contradictory, notion of morals that they have created. I would suggest that the only natural parts of humans are the parts that want to eat, pass waste, sleep and reproduce. And even those have been so twisted by morals and abstract codes that they have lost their original identities as natural processes.

 

[Pluto]

 

[Cosmophobic]

With all due respect to idiots: only idiots say that.

 

[thankyouforthis]

Have you noticed it before? That maybe we all will excuse something borderline unpleasant or immoral as being ok because 'it's natural. It's just nature.'

Why do we see nature as necessarily good though? It certainly isn't always moral. A praying mantis slowly devouring its live prey can't exactly be optimal. A fly that has evolved to survive by laying its eggs into other animals eye sockets- sometimes blinding the animal in the process is absolutely horrific.

It's especially confusing when we use it to justify human behaviour. The whole point about humans- that we like to pride ourselves on, is that we are able to rationalise and not take actions which deliberately hurt others.

So- defending questionable behaviour as being 'natural' is neither a compliment- It's assuming that person is so utterly driven by their instincts, that they can't see beyond them. Neither does it justify it- because we are beings that are capable of rational thought and indeed can consider the impact of our actions on others.

I guess it is more permissable in the natural world- because presumably, animals have less of a sense of right and wrong.

I suppose the slightly suspect feelings humans may have are 'natural' in the instinctual, unconscious sense but, our actions are tempered most of the time. So, we aren't entirely 'natural' beings in the first place. We may have 'natural' wants but we temper them with morals. I suppose morals don't really exist in the natural world- that I can think of. More that every creature will try to do whatever it can get away with.

What I find very interesting about this post is not only the question of "Is that which is natural inherently good?" but also a question that emerges therefrom: "What is natural?" I would argue that a lot of stuff that gets justified as "natural" really isn't. For instance, some people love to talk about how humans are inherently competitive and hierarchical and this is why things like capitalism are supposedly inevitable. A deep study of prehistory, however, reveals that myriad peoples actually lived cooperatively around the world in the past. (The ways in which they lived are not always 100% replicable today, because of things like our much-more-massive current population and damage we've done to the planet; but still, those people existed and they cooperated.) I think "It's natural"/"it's human nature" gets used by the Powers That Be to convince The Rest of Us to accept shit we should never accept.

Edited because % was originally typoed as $.

Morals are, to my understanding, a human construct. But we remain, ultimately, animals at our core. There is a struggle within us to reconcile what is natural and what is moral.

I'm vegan. I actually don't tend to advertise it (got to fight the stereotype!), or bring it up unless relevant, but in this case, I'd like to raise an example relevant to this.

My personal belief is that humans do not need to enslave, exploit and murder animals for our own benefit. If I happen to mention to someone that I'm vegan, a common argument is that eating other animals is 'natural'. By logic, this makes sense. A lion's nature, for example, is to kill prey to provide itself with sustenance. That is natural. But we have developed a code of ethics, a system of morals, that defines our point of view on existence and our place in it. I don't believe that the animal husbandry industry is in any way natural. The end result, that people can eat animals, may be considered natural. But the methods employed to get to that point, are, in my opinion, not natural and not moral.

However, it is the status quo. And the status quo is a very, very powerful tool. It is what defines morals. And it is what defines what humans perceive to be 'natural'. People, broadly speaking, don't like the status quo to change. We see so much pushback, especially in the 21st century, against ideals that can give better and happier lives to a large number of people, without harming those who push back in any way whatsoever. They say it's not natural. But they claim that things that also are not natural, are in fact natural (see above). It has become a meaningless word, a word that people can bandy about when it suits their weak arguments.

The entirety of modern human society, ultimately, is not natural. Humans are more detached from nature now than at any point in history prior to this. Nature isn't moral, as you say. And humans are caught between their primal origins, where once they did know, live and breathe nature, and the complex, often contradictory, notion of morals that they have created. I would suggest that the only natural parts of humans are the parts that want to eat, pass waste, sleep and reproduce. And even those have been so twisted by morals and abstract codes that they have lost their original identities as natural processes.

Next time, ask the person who says this to you, "When was the last time you saw a cat, rabbit, or other small animal and had to actively resist the urge to pounce on it and tear its flesh open with your teeth?"

 

[WhatCouldHaveBeen32]

It subverts responsibility, that's why. It doesn't matter what is natural and what is not, nature can't speak talk or do anything like that, we have a conscience and we can decide that stopping violence is the preferred outcome in a world where animals and people who are exposed to violence get traumatized and die earlier/live an unfulfilled life.

It's human morals for as long as we are the only intelligent species that thinks like this, the people who say "human nature" to justify disgusting actions would immediately backtrack on their words if a superior alien race would arrive and have come to the conclusion that we must stop fighting, because of fear.

That's the answer long story short, they are just DUMB or are evil when it comes to emotional intelligence, they can read and memorize however much they want but they are just stupid and selfish and can only regurgitate words and not actions.

We are also on top of that being played for as sims, for some people with insane amount of money, astro turfing/making propaganda that are about ideals, morals, class, hierarchy, racism, sexism, etc. it's child play for them to do so and it only brings them benefits.

 

[Dejected 55]

Not everything natural is good, and not everything good is natural. That said, I think you may have accidentally conflated a couple of concepts.

To some extent, saying "it's natural" isn't a retreat or a deflection... it's just a recognization of what is. Like, you can't get mad at rain. Rain happens when it happens. It might not be convenient for you... but it's a thing that is just going to happen when it happens. Plan around it as best you can, but we don't always know where or how much rain will be there. It's natural.

Much of human behavior, though, is not natural. We have built societies around us behaving very unnatural. Most of the things we interact with are unnatural. Deflecting behaviors as "natural" are a flimsy excuse. It's the "boys being boys" response to a girl complaining a boy touched her inappropriately. Fuck that noise. "It's natural" doesn't explain that away in our society. If you want nature... in nature an unwanted touch from another animal in the pack probably gets you killed or at least severely injured. If a boy keeps groping a girl "naturally" can she stab him in his sleep "naturally" too? That seems fair to me... and very natural reaction.

If you want to explode your brain, though... you can make a philosophical case that humans are natural... and all the materials and elements that came with the planet are natural... so if we natural humans turn those natural materials into unnatural things? Those things are by default also natural because they are the result of natural interaction of two or more natural things that result in another.

 

[MyShadow]

Have you noticed it before? That maybe we all will excuse something borderline unpleasant or immoral as being ok because 'it's natural. It's just nature.'

Why do we see nature as necessarily good though? It certainly isn't always moral. A praying mantis slowly devouring its live prey can't exactly be optimal. A fly that has evolved to survive by laying its eggs into other animals eye sockets- sometimes blinding the animal in the process is absolutely horrific.

It's especially confusing when we use it to justify human behaviour. The whole point about humans- that we like to pride ourselves on, is that we are able ycle to rationalise and not take actions which deliberately hurt others.

So- defending questionable behaviour as being 'natural' is neither a compliment- It's assuming that person is so utterly driven by their instincts, that they can't see beyond them. Neither does it justify it- because we are beings that are capable of rational thought and indeed can consider the impact of our actions on others.

I guess it is more permissable in the natural world- because presumably, animals have less of a sense of right and wrong.

I suppose the slightly suspect feelings humans may have are 'natural' in the instinctual, unconscious sense but, our actions are tempered most of the time. So, we aren't entirely 'natural' beings in the first place. We may have 'natural' wants but we temper them with morals. I suppose morals don't really exist in the natural world- that I can think of. More that every creature will try to do whatever it can get away with.

When I think about nature and what animals do to each other, I think about billionaires and their parasitic nature.

Billionaires are the ultimate parasite. They use, take, gather, manipulate, steal and corrupt everything around them until a particular "host" is dead or simply used up. Then they move onto the next "host" and the cycle begins again.

They do this over and over again, leaving carnage in their wake with no thought to the damage they've created to those around them. Humans are the worst animal on the planet.

 

[OvercastingClouds]

You know, I've had this story idea in the back of my mind for a long time now that centers around human beings and topics considered "taboo" and "deplorable", bringing up topics people are uncomfortable with and often censored or covered up, bringing everything to light as to show the reality of the human race and how in the end we're still animals at the end of the day.
Like someone mentioned before, morality is a human construct. In nature morality does not really exist. Nature is cruel, horrific, it can be disgusting and deplorable, but it can be interesting and beautiful too.

The thing that seperates us from your typical animal is our consciousness and our self-awareness, along with intelligence. I constantly think about how if we didn't have those things, just how much true human nature would come out, without our applied laws, rules, morals, etc. We'd be no better than other animals, not that I really think we are anyways. Thinking about how people act in films involving scenarios where no rules exist like the apocalypse, the purge, end of the world, etc, and even real life, it makes you truly wonder. Even then, those rules don't stop everyone. That's why so many violent or otherwise disgusting crimes come up still.

But yeah I don't understand why anyone would use "it's natural" as an excuse. It's not. We have the conscious to not commit immoral acts.