Natural doesn’t mean peaceful or pleasant. Nature is jam packed with violence and conflict. The universe is an exceptionally violent place, that is natural.
I think when appealing to nature is being used as argument, it has to be backed up by consequentialist principle, that there should not be any harm inflicted to anyone.
To give examples, one could say homosexuality is natural, but as long as both parties consent, it should not be an issue. However, in the case of paedophilia despite being natural, the child is getting hurt. A Jewish Roman historian noted that children in a pederastic relationship clearly don’t like it.
The nature argument is used most prominently by conservatives and religious people to say homosexuality is bad (though I know scientifically it exists in animals too).
The nature argument is used precisely by the people who don’t use the harm principle and instead brute force assert divine mysticism (christians, muslims mostly).
Can you send the source for that historian thing, I’d be interested.
Can you send the source for that historian thing, I’d be interested.
I’ve read it from Reddit AskHistorians long ago, and knowing Reddit search capability, it would be hard to find the exact post.
For what it’s worth, I think the name of the Jewish Roman historian was Josephus. A quick Internet search would mention his name and his views and observations of pederastic culture of ancient Romans and Greeks.
Natural doesn’t mean peaceful or pleasant. Nature is jam packed with violence and conflict. The universe is an exceptionally violent place, that is natural.
Arguments appealing to nature are nonsensical to begin with.
Animals murder and assault each other in nature. That is “natural” too. Doesn’t mean it’s what we should strive to either.
I think when appealing to nature is being used as argument, it has to be backed up by consequentialist principle, that there should not be any harm inflicted to anyone.
To give examples, one could say homosexuality is natural, but as long as both parties consent, it should not be an issue. However, in the case of paedophilia despite being natural, the child is getting hurt. A Jewish Roman historian noted that children in a pederastic relationship clearly don’t like it.
The nature argument is used most prominently by conservatives and religious people to say homosexuality is bad (though I know scientifically it exists in animals too).
The nature argument is used precisely by the people who don’t use the harm principle and instead brute force assert divine mysticism (christians, muslims mostly).
Can you send the source for that historian thing, I’d be interested.
I’ve read it from Reddit AskHistorians long ago, and knowing Reddit search capability, it would be hard to find the exact post.
For what it’s worth, I think the name of the Jewish Roman historian was Josephus. A quick Internet search would mention his name and his views and observations of pederastic culture of ancient Romans and Greeks.