Difference between revisions of "Appeal to nature"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(overview, finally)
(smw; filed links; rationalwiki)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Overview==
+
<hide>
−
[[Category:logical fallacies]]An [[appeal to nature]] is a claim that something is [[good]] or right because it is "natural", or that something is [[bad]] or wrong because it is unnatural.
+
[[page type::article]]
 +
[[thing type::logical fallacy]]
 +
[[Category:logical fallacies]]
 +
</hide>
 +
==About==
 +
An [[appeal to nature]] is a [[claim]] that something is [[good]] or right because it is "[[natural]]", or that something is [[bad]] or wrong because it is unnatural.
  
−
This equation is generally regarded as a fallacy for the following reasons:
+
This equation is generally regarded as a [[fallacy]] (it is also known as the "naturalistic fallacy") for the following reasons:
−
* [[Civilization]] is inherently "unnatural", and any argument not [[argument from force|based solely on force]] depends on the existence of civilized discourse, itself based on the principles of rational thought and analysis. When these are suspended or removed, society reverts to [[feudalism]] and only stops there due to the innate cleverness of human beings at manipulating each other with threats.
+
* the lack of justification for thinking that this is so.
−
* The large number of obvious counterexamples. You wouldn't, say, defend a shark's right to attack swimmers (much less a vicious dog's right to maim children) just because that was its natural tendency, or make laws requiring that people behave more like chimpanzees.
+
* the fact that most of [[civilization]] is inherently "unnatural", e.g. wearing clothes. Very few who use this argument are willing to follow up on all of its implications:
 +
** Any argument based on the assumption that "unnatural" means "bad" therefore must grant that wearing clothing is wrong. One common use of the appeal to nature is within prudish [[anti-gay|denouncements]] of nonstandard sexual behavior; the proponents of such arguments are generally horrified by public nudity, [[breastfeeding]], and other "natural" activities.
 +
** Any discussion in which this argument is used is maligning the framework of civil discourse in which the discussion is taking place; hitting the other person over the head with a rock is therefore an appropriate rebuttal, since it is an entirely natural response.
 +
* the large number of obvious counterexamples. You wouldn't, say, defend a shark's right to attack swimmers (much less a vicious dog's right to maim children) just because that was its natural tendency, or make laws requiring that people behave more like chimpanzees.
 
===Validity===
 
===Validity===
 
As with many fallacies, there is a grain of validity to it &ndash; in this case, the fact that if something is done in nature, it may be somehow vital to survival, otherwise known as the [[argument from survival]].
 
As with many fallacies, there is a grain of validity to it &ndash; in this case, the fact that if something is done in nature, it may be somehow vital to survival, otherwise known as the [[argument from survival]].
−
==Reference==
+
==Links==
−
* {{wikipedia|Appeal to nature}}
+
===Reference===
 +
* {{wikipedia}}
 +
* {{!in|conservapedia}}: no information as of 2014-03-14
 +
* {{rationalwiki}}
 +
{{links/smw}}

Latest revision as of 17:43, 14 March 2014

About

An appeal to nature is a claim that something is good or right because it is "natural", or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural.

This equation is generally regarded as a fallacy (it is also known as the "naturalistic fallacy") for the following reasons:

  • the lack of justification for thinking that this is so.
  • the fact that most of civilization is inherently "unnatural", e.g. wearing clothes. Very few who use this argument are willing to follow up on all of its implications:
    • Any argument based on the assumption that "unnatural" means "bad" therefore must grant that wearing clothing is wrong. One common use of the appeal to nature is within prudish denouncements of nonstandard sexual behavior; the proponents of such arguments are generally horrified by public nudity, breastfeeding, and other "natural" activities.
    • Any discussion in which this argument is used is maligning the framework of civil discourse in which the discussion is taking place; hitting the other person over the head with a rock is therefore an appropriate rebuttal, since it is an entirely natural response.
  • the large number of obvious counterexamples. You wouldn't, say, defend a shark's right to attack swimmers (much less a vicious dog's right to maim children) just because that was its natural tendency, or make laws requiring that people behave more like chimpanzees.

Validity

As with many fallacies, there is a grain of validity to it – in this case, the fact that if something is done in nature, it may be somehow vital to survival, otherwise known as the argument from survival.

Links

Reference

Related


Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Appeal_to_nature&oldid=33867"