by Piter Kehoma Boll
This post may upset some people, perhaps people from very different backgrounds and very different points of view regarding society or human practices, but I feel that I have to discuss this subject that has been used as a way to justify or condemn some behaviors.
Everybody has already heard, and perhaps even uses, the argument of “this is not natural” as a justification to oppose something. You can hear homophobes use it to condemn homosexuality, vegans to condemn the ingestion of meat, or even old people to lament the death of a child. It is sometimes called “argumentum ad naturam” or “appeal to nature”, a fallacy that considers that something natural is always better than something unnatural.
When a homophobe says that he or she is against homosexuality because it is not natural, their oppositors, people who defend the freedom of sexuality, quickly present them with evidences of homosexuality in other species. I myself, being a gay man, used, in the past, examples of other gay animals to explain that homosexuality is indeed natural.
Regarding human diet, we can find the same thing, including two opposite groups using this very same argument. You can see vegetarians advocating against the consumption of meat because of our dentition or intestine, which are not typical of a carnivorous species. On the other hand, people who defend the so-called “paleo” diet try to reconstruct a diet that was common to our pre-historical ancestors, which would be our “natural” diet, and thus they consume large amounts of meat and fruits and avoid consuming grains, large amounts of sugar or other food that need to be domesticated. In the same way, other people, such as vegans (and even paleo lovers) are against consuming milk because this is a baby food and should not be ingested by adult mammals, afterall “it is not natural” to take the milk of a female of another species and drink it.
Now let me tell you something: this all means shit. This is not how things work in the real world, which by the way is the same as nature. When we use the argument of something being natural or unnatural, we are implying that there is a pre-established way for things to work, that there is a purpose in life. Well, there is not! Do you know natural selection, right? Well, it basically states that the most successful variations of something are the ones that will survive, regardless of what they are or how they are used. The mouth evolved primarily as an opening through which animals ingest food, but we use our mouths to many different things, such as to speak, breathe, kiss, hold things, or give blowjobs. Are those things unnatural? Who cares? As long as the mouth is good at doing it, it will continue to be used to do it.
And more than that, using other species as a comparison to things that are natural or not for humans is ridiculous. Just because we are the only species that write, is writing unnatural? If we consider that to be true, then we can apply it to find unnatural behaviors in any other species. As long as a behavior is only found in a single species, it would be unnatural.
As a social and (supposedly) scientific species, we should consider a behavior as good or bad based on its consequences to society or to individuals, as well as to the world as a whole. Murdering is bad not because it is unnatural, but because it kills people! Pollution is not bad because it is unnatural, it is bad because it pollutes! So more than only being stupid because of its assumption that natural things are good and unnatural things are not, the appeal to nature is also stupid because there is no way to separate things in natural and unnatural. Let’s grow up intellectually and stop using this bullshit of an argument at all.
– – –
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.