The Naturalistic Fallacy?

Andya_Primanda

Peace all,

The idea for this thread comes from the currently dynamic homosexuality thread. Some question pops into my mind.

Is 'natural' equal with 'morally right'?

Or is it 'Just because something is natural does not mean it is morally right'?

Can we derive moral principles from 'natural conditions' or not?

What do you think is the Qur'anic stance about this matter?

Those are the questions I want to discuss. I expect some will be apologetic, some will try to be strict, and some will appeal to the anturalistic fallacy. Let's start the discussion. And feel free to extend the examples to anything, not just homosexuality.

Wakas

peace AP,

In the homosexuality thread, I requested members to think of examples in which going against our nature or laws of nature (i.e. unatural) resulted in something clearly beneficial for us. There has been no examples thus far.

Wakas

unknownuser

Peace all,

The idea for this thread comes from the currently dynamic homosexuality thread. Some question pops into my mind.

Is 'natural' equal with 'morally right'?

Or is it 'Just because something is natural does not mean it is morally right'?

Can we derive moral principles from 'natural conditions' or not?

What do you think is the Qur'anic stance about this matter?

Those are the questions I want to discuss. I expect some will be apologetic, some will try to be strict, and some will appeal to the anturalistic fallacy. Let's start the discussion. And feel free to extend the examples to anything, not just homosexuality.

Its a good thread Andya. Lets see how it develops -)

But here few questions I would like to ask also

Where does morality come from in the first place?

Are all morality derived from scriptures?

Can we use our Reason to decide on a set of morality for us?

Is morality ultimately connected with divine and scripture?

Is morality to be defined whether we follow the scripture or not?

How do we decide if something is moral are not?
For one society's moral is totally unacceptable to another. So how do we decide what is Universal Morality?

I could say Universal Morality, for example evolves from our past experiences. Are all morality evolved in this way?

To anwer your question Is 'natural' equal with 'morally right'?
I would say no. But I am interested to hear what other people have to say about this...

Regards,

esimsek100

Peace,

Naturally, it can be argued, we are inclined to the following-

*Polygamy

*Killing, survival of the fittest

*Wars for dominance

*Following mob mentality

Now out of those that I have listed I'm going to back mob mentality.

Mob mentality is proven over and over again, the way humans prefer to be spoonfed, the way humans seem to follow conjecture and rumours.

We all know the current problem in Islam, the mob being led by the blind.

The Quran (moral) tells us to think for ourselves, but yet peer pressure, mob mentality seems to be so strong in our nature that many people find it hard to break free.

Fahad1

Is 'natural' equal with 'morally right'?

Or is it 'Just because something is natural does not mean it is morally right'?

Can we derive moral principles from 'natural conditions' or not?

What do you think is the Qur'anic stance about this matter?

salam Andya and LoteTree.
"natural" is not necessarily "moral" . through His books God informs us of what is good and what is evil . otherwise how r we gonna know .

Where does morality come from in the first place?

from God , through his scriptures. wink

Are all morality derived from scriptures?

yes

Can we use our Reason to decide on a set of morality for us?

our reasoning is not above God's word .

How do we decide if something is moral are not?

the koran has been revealed as the criterion . for example some ppl say that homosexuality is ok but bestiality is bad . how can they say that ?! who is gonna decide what is good and what is evil ?! our intellect and reasoning ?! according to "our" reasoning homosexuality is not immoral but bestiality is .
the koran tells us what is immoral .

For one society's moral is totally unacceptable to another. So how do we decide what is Universal Morality?

same thing . the koran is the criterion .
salam.

Tay

Peace Andya,

Very thought-provoking.

I maintain that both the terms "natural" and "moral (i.e. wrong and right)" are subjective. Both concepts deal with majority opinion in human society(s).

Interestingly, one may act naturally and still be immoral, and one may act morally, going againt a natural reaction. So both terms are neither mutually exclusive nor inclusive.

Peace,
Tay

Andya_Primanda

Peace everyone,

Thanks for the interest.

I'll try to respond to Lote-Tree first.

Where does morality come from in the first place?

I don't know when is 'the first' but I assume humans have inherited some kind of survivalist moralistic tendency (which every organism has). That is, whatever makes you survive is right. But as I will argue, this 'natural' tendency is not absolute, and more important, not 100% right.

Are all morality derived from scriptures?

No. I have seen atheists, agnostics, and deists who is morally straight--they don't cheat, lie, embezzle public funds, molest children, incite hatred etc. However, it must be stated that these people are usually intelligent and highly educated, therefore I assume they somehow devise their own moral codes from their own philosophies and thoughts.

Having said that, there are also atheists and agnostics who do immoral things (according to my moral standards) like genocide, torture, bigotry. I haven't find the common thread that linked them, but I suspect it comes from their ideology and/or philosophy, with additional fuel from the partly nasty 'human nature'.

In addition, I have come to believe that most people on Earth do not have the time of capacity to reflect and devise an acceptable moral code of their own. This is where religion and scriptures--any religion and/or scripture--are most useful, as it gives a ready-made common moral code for the masses.

Can we use our Reason to decide on a set of morality for us?

My opinion is that it can, but not everyone is capable of this. Sure, some atheists and theists can, but other atheists and theists cannot.

Is morality ultimately connected with divine and scripture?

I don't know. But insofar as everything should be connected with the divine, I guess morality is too.

Is morality to be defined whether we follow the scripture or not?

Again, I don't know. Everybody will have a different answer to this. The worldly test of any kind of morality is to see if it works in society. As for the metaphysical aspects, I dare not speculate. God knows.

How do we decide if something is moral are not?

I'm swerving between public acceptance, society stability, and scriptural endorsement here, but seeing that the first two are subjective and changing, I believe the third option remains a good standard. Provided the holy text itself does not change.

For one society's moral is totally unacceptable to another. So how do we decide what is Universal Morality?

I must appeal to scripture again here.

Andya_Primanda

Peace Andya,

Very thought-provoking.

I maintain that both the terms "natural" and "moral (i.e. wrong and right)" are subjective. Both concepts deal with majority opinion in human society(s).

Interestingly, one may act naturally and still be immoral, and one may act morally, going againt a natural reaction. So both terms are neither mutually exclusive nor inclusive.

Peace,
Tay

Peace Tay,

Good insight. Working in the life sciences gave me a lot of opportunity to explore ethical issues that involved the definitions of 'natural'.

For instance, I would say that agriculture is not natural. Yet it is the system that feeds us today, so nobody's arguing against it. Gene manipulation is also unnatural, but at present it is still controversial and people are arguing about it. So is sex-change operations (which is suggested as a remedy for homosexuality in the other thread). So is artificial cloning (although I have to say that cloning itself sometimes happen naturally, and humans have cloned plants for a long time).

I once argued with a traditionalist friend (a sympathizer of the Ikhwan al-Muslimin, Muslim Brotherhood) about facial hair. He said it is natural for a man to let his beard grow. I said then why are you shaving your mustache and cut your hair short? Then he said it was sunna.

Even the practisers of sunna acknowledge that sometimes we override natural tendencies. Not that it stops them using the naturalistic card on other issues (like the role of woman in society).

So what do you think?

Andya_Primanda

Oh, and why haven't anybody throw in verses?

Wakas

peace AP,

I fail to see how agriculture is unatural. Its simply a more organised/intelligent way to produce what feeds us.

http//dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=agriculture

Unless, do you mean mass industrialised agriculture (large volumes of pesticides etc.)?

Wakas

unknownuser

Hello Andya Primanda,

Thanks for the interesting answers to my questions. Your answers are very honest and objective as I would have expected from a scientist -)

I shall reflect on your input and others too to see if I could add anything new to this topic...

Regards,

Andya_Primanda

peace AP,

I fail to see how agriculture is unatural. Its simply a more organised/intelligent way to produce what feeds us.

http//dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=agriculture

Unless, do you mean mass industrialised agriculture (large volumes of pesticides etc.)?

Wakas

Peace Wakas,

You're right. I retract the statement. After rereading my facts I found that some non-human animals also practice agriculture in a crude form, such as termites that grow fungus and ants that keep aphids as cattle. I was under the assumption that humans are 'naturally' hunter-gatherers.

Moving on, any other opinions? Are humans 'naturally' endowed with a moral sense? Can we generalize 'human nature' as applicable to all shades of humanity? What does the Qur'an say about this?

Someone

Peace all,

An example of something unnatural for humans "flying". Moral or immoral ? ?

--

Fahad1

Peace all,

An example of something unnatural for humans "flying". Moral or immoral ? ?

--

koran doesnt prohibit flying ,right . then flying is not immoral .
peace.

Andya_Primanda

No contrary opinions so far...

So I guess we all agree on these points

That if something is 'natural' does not mean that it is morally right, and if something is 'unnatural' does not mean that it is morally wrong.
That the criterion for moral judgement is not nature, but the Qur'an.

With that in mind I suggest the next time someone claims that something is immoral because it is considered unnatural, let them read this thread.

Wakas

peace All,

I'm not sure if flying was an actual proposed answer to my initial question, but there is nothing unatural about flying. Humans wish to travel faster / more efficiently from A to B, thus whether its on a horse, on a cart, on a donkey, in a car, in an aeroplane, its the same thing.

If nothing unatural has been shown to clearly benefit us, then it suggests that which is unatural is likely to be inhernetly problematic/negative.

This was my original point in the homosexuality thread. It is clearly unatural (against our nature / laws of nature) thus if people think its ok, they must provide examples of unatural practice = clearly beneficial.

Wakas

Andya_Primanda

This was my original point in the homosexuality thread. It is clearly unatural (against our nature / laws of nature) thus if people think its ok, they must provide examples of unatural practice = clearly beneficial.

Peace Wakas,

I think you should distinguish between 'OK' and 'beneficial'. Something that is permitted is not necessarily beneficial.

Tay

Peace All,

The example of flying presents a necessity, I feel, to clearly define what "unnatural" is in the context we are describing.

Here is the dictionary definition

un?nat?u?ral ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-nchr-l)
adj.
1-In violation of a natural law.
2-Inconsistent with an individual pattern or custom.
3-Deviating from a behavioral or social norm an unnatural attachment.
4-Contrived or constrained; artificial smiled in an unnatural manner.
5-In violation of natural feelings; inhuman.

So what's it gonna be?

on another note, Saladin stated

koran doesnt prohibit flying ,right . then flying is not immoral .

There are concepts that are not prohibited in the Qur'an which I'm sure we'd agree is immoral. Anal sex is not prohibited between a married man and a woman. Defecating in public is not prohibited. Clipping one's toenails in a crowded restaurant is not prohibited either. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

The Qur'an is for guidance, not a comprehensive list of moral vs. immoral behaviors. We are asked to follow what is best, as studying the Qur'an refines the soul to be in tune with the universe. This allows one to distinguish, from within, what is moral or immoral. And most concepts in question will be agreed upon by those one the same wavelength.

Peace,
Tay

Tay

Peace Andya,

Sorry I missed your reply, as it seems the posts have been jumbled out of order.

I think the example of gene manipulation is excellent, as the benefits can be clearly seen, as are the potential negatives, and we can all probably agree that we're messing with nature's map (unnatural).

Putting this concept together with flying, the question might be posed then that since humans have the ability to manipulate certain aspects of nature via technology, is the definition of "natural" dynamic? I mean, 150 years ago, it was certainly unnatural for humans to fly as well as for humans to manipulate gene structure. Cloning comes to mind. Imagine how folks would have reacted to animal cloning in the 18th century.

Peace,
Tay

Wakas

peace AP,

In my context
Ok = permissable/allowed

beneficial to us (as a whole)
http//dictionary.reference.com/search?q=beneficial

Something that is permitted is not necessarily beneficial.

Can you elaborate?

I think gene manipulation is still in its infancy, thus difficult to determine if its beneficial for us (as a whole). Unless one can provide a unanimously agreed benefit. It could be argued that the theme behind it is natural, i.e. using human intelligence to utilise nature to our advantage.

The way I see it homosexuality is unatural because if everyone was, humans would be wiped out.

In any case, is gene manipulation the only example of a proposed answer to my initial question? If so, its still only one, implying the vast majority of unatural practices are problematic/negative etc.

Wakas