The Naturalistic Fallacy?
-
peace AP,
In my context
Ok = permissable/allowedbeneficial to us (as a whole)
http//dictionary.reference.com/search?q=beneficialSomething that is permitted is not necessarily beneficial.
Can you elaborate?
Let's see... how about eating fatty and cholesterol-laden food? As far as I know there is nothing in the Qur'an that prohibits me from eating, say, a beefburger or a bucket full of deep-fried entrails. Yet the food I mentioned is full of excess fat and cholesterol and I know it would be bad for me in the long run because it can clog my arteries. That's one example of 'permitted but not beneficial'. Of course this case is based on the assumption that I am not malnourished and not in need of extra fat/cholesterol in any way.
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.
I agree that the whole gene manipulation business is still in infancy. But either way I am inclined to think it is unnatural, because it implies directly engineering organisms into something different from their former (nature-shaped) state. I can think of some potential benefits and dangers, but as you said, it is too early to talk about this.
The way I see it homosexuality is unatural because if everyone was, humans would be wiped out.
Seeing that humans normally reproduce sexually, I partly agree. One thing that constantly comes up in homosexual discussions is that one side claims some people are 'born that way' (implying that homosexuality is natural) and the other side claims people 'choose to be that way' (implying that homosexuality is not natural, based on an assumption like yours above. What I would like to say is that whether it's natural or unnatural, the Qur'an still condemns it.
A lot of people try to use the 'natural' condition as some kind of deterministic argument--which, IMHO, is another way of shifting responsibility to whatever caused the natural condition God, genes, environment, society, etc.
Of course there will be problems by saying that something can be natural and wrong. It could drive people into frustration when they realize whatever tendency they're born with is considered wrong but they cannot do anything to make it go away.
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.
Medical treatment is another example of unnatural practice that is beneficial. Disease is a major killer among organisms in nature. Humans have improved their life expectancy after we master medicinal science. Although there is a small number of animals that is known to have some crude medicinal knowledge (cats and apes for instance are known to eat certain leaves that would help them clean their bowels and prevent constipation), most life-forms just suffer from disease and either die, or recover if their immune system can defeat the disease.
I think I can find a lot of 'unnatural practices' beneficial (in any sense) to humans. Starting a fire, and its various descendants like turning on the lights (gives us light at any time for whatever reason, not confining us to daylight). Plumbing (brings water to us instead of us having to walk to water). Mining (gives us various materials like metals and fuel that was never used by any other organisms).
-
peace AP,
Thanks for elaborating.
Medical treatment is another example of unnatural practice that is beneficial...
I think I can find a lot of 'unnatural practices' beneficial (in any sense) to humans. Starting a fire, and its various descendants like turning on the lights (gives us light at any time for whatever reason, not confining us to daylight). Plumbing (brings water to us instead of us having to walk to water). Mining (gives us various materials like metals and fuel that was never used by any other organisms).
I think there is a difference in our understanding of what is natural and what is unatural. I strongly disagree with the examples you gave. You mentioned the examples of cats and apes, well ours, is just more advanced than theirs. If I cut myself and I figure if I put pressure on my wound or wrap it with a cloth it will reduce the bleeding, that is not unatural. If I break my toe and everytime I move it, it hurts, so I decide to make a cast so it remains fixed, that is not unatural. If I find a way of looking inside human flesh in order to see what bone is broken, I'll use it, that is not unatural. In fact, it would be unatural not to use our natural intelligence. This applies to the rest of the examples you gave in my opinion.
Many ants eat a sweet fluid, called honeydew, that is excreted by aphids. Some species actually keep and protect the aphids and care for their eggs. Honeypot ants of the genus Myrmecocystus of the southwestern U.S. store honeydew, utilizing certain workers as living containers for the fluid. These workers are fed enormous quantities of honeydew; their bodies become so greatly distended that they are unable to crawl about. They remain motionless in the nest, disgorging droplets of food as required.
Fluid organisation/transport? Plumbing for humans, whats the difference?
Wakas
-
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.
salam
i dont see any of these acts as really immoral . i mean none of these things increase one's chances of going to hell , right ? ? -
Peace Saladin,
You stated
i dont see any of these acts as really immoral
OK, forgive me in advance for searching for a boundary, but would you consider a woman who enjoyed eating her husband's crap, literally, as immoral?
none of these things increase one's chances of going to hell , right ? ?
I dunno bro. It's not my place to say. But in general, I would venture to guess that anyone who takes part in all the activities I mentioned on a regular basis is probably not on the right path.
Peace,
Tay -
I think there is a difference in our understanding of what is natural and what is unatural. I strongly disagree with the examples you gave. You mentioned the examples of cats and apes, well ours, is just more advanced than theirs. If I cut myself and I figure if I put pressure on my wound or wrap it with a cloth it will reduce the bleeding, that is not unatural. If I break my toe and everytime I move it, it hurts, so I decide to make a cast so it remains fixed, that is not unatural. If I find a way of looking inside human flesh in order to see what bone is broken, I'll use it, that is not unatural. In fact, it would be unatural not to use our natural intelligence. This applies to the rest of the examples you gave in my opinion.
Peace Wakas,
If that's how you see it, then everything is natural! The way you say 'It is natural to use our human intelligence' makes everything humans do, however seemingly unnatural, becomes natural.
But that's beside the point, of course. I'm more interested in arguing whether things can be natural and also considered morally wrong.
-
OK, forgive me in advance for searching for a boundary, but would you consider a woman who enjoyed eating her husband's crap, literally, as immoral?
Not to be a spoilsport but I can say that coprophagy (the posh name of the act you referred) is practised by many animals, including rabbits, mole rats, and termites. Of course this being their 'natural' behaviour does not mean that it is also natural in humans.
Really, there are lots of hard-to-swallow things in nature... I regret losing my innocent rosy view of nature after choosing to spend my life studying it!
-
Peace Andya,
You stated
Not to be a spoilsport but I can say that coprophagy (the posh name of the act you referred) is practised by many animals, including rabbits, mole rats, and termites
Thank you for the insight. x
Koala cubs also take part in this, but for survival's sake. The mother's excrement is actually nutritious and necessary for the cub. Nevertheless, the point I was trying to adress with Saladin was not the nature of the act, but the morality, as he stated that if something isn't mentioned as immoral in the Qur'an, then it isn't immoral.Saladin asked
what "crap" ?
Excrement, aka, poopoo, aka "kharra".
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Andya,
You stated
Not to be a spoilsport but I can say that coprophagy (the posh name of the act you referred) is practised by many animals, including rabbits, mole rats, and termites
Thank you for the insight. x
Koala cubs also take part in this, but for survival's sake. The mother's excrement is actually nutritious and necessary for the cub. Nevertheless, the point I was trying to adress with Saladin was not the nature of the act, but the morality, as he stated that if something isn't mentioned as immoral in the Qur'an, then it isn't immoral.i really dont like to ask this question , but is the husband's excrement also nutritious for the wife ? any idea ? or the mother's for the babies ?
p.s. yuck.
-
i really dont like to ask this question , but is the husband's excrement also nutritious for the wife ? any idea ? or the mother's for the babies ?
p.s. yuck.
A physics student once commented, "Why are you biology students obsessed with poo?" ?
Koalas have inefficient digestion because of their short guts. Most nutrients they eat are not absorbed and end up in their stools.
Rabbits and termites eat each other's discharges because they need to get the microorganisms that got evacuated back into their digestive system again.
On humans, I don't know if there is any study about the nutritional value (or lack thereof) of human feces. But the human digestive system is more efficient than the koala's, because we have a longer gut and therefore longer nutrient-absorbing surface, so I assume it's not worth trying.
Now excuse me, I'm trying to have lunch...
-
peace AP,
If that's how you see it, then everything is natural!
No it is not. Thats your interpretation of my statement.
The way you say 'It is natural to use our human intelligence' makes everything humans do, however seemingly unnatural, becomes natural.
Are you implying it is unatural for humans to use their intelligence? I'd be interested to hear your explanation of this line of thinking.
I assume you will answer "no" to the above question. If so, you will eventually come to a confrontation in situation, e.g. humans using their intelligence V gene manipulation for example. So humans can use their intelligence up to a certain point, then it becomes unatural?
Also, you never commented on my ants example, is it an example of fluid organisation, thus what is plumbing natural or unatural?
Wakas
-
OK, forgive me in advance for searching for a boundary, but would you consider a woman who enjoyed eating her husband's crap, literally, as immoral?
salam Tay and all .
i would say that if we call something or some act moral or immoral (and if that act is not forbidden in the koran ,then), it is only a matter of perspectives . or opinion . what would appear immoral to one might be normal for another . -
Peace Wakas,
Now I'm really confused as to what is natural and not natural. Obviously those who claim that some acts are unnatural (take your pick homosexuality, gene manipulation, flying, plumbing, etc.) think that somehow there is a criteria of 'naturalness'. But your statement that 'it is natural for humans to use their intellect' implies that almost everything us humans did that were never done in nature by any other creature before is natural!
About the ants example It's not a perfect analogy for human plumbing. It's more like a food storage system (which in humans does not use individuals but buildings and space). Ants still have to walk for water instead of putting pipes and pumps. Plants make a better analogy for human plumbing--their bodies are literally pipes and their leaves are solar-powered pumps.
-
peace Andya,
Confusion is good sometimes, it makes us re-evaluate our situation.
But your statement that 'it is natural for humans to use their intellect' implies that almost everything us humans did that were never done in nature by any other creature before is natural!
Of course other animals have not done exactly what we have done, e.g. plumbing/cars etc., but what they have done is primitive (on the whole, from our perspective) versions of what we do. Their application of intellect matched their intellect, our application of intellect matched our intellect. Perfectly natural for all species.
For humans to use their intellect is perfectly natural. I doubt anyone could disagree with this. Many animals do this, but we do it on a much higher level. Since we do it on a much higher level, we test the boundaries, thus eventually application of our intellect may reach a point, where people think its become unatural, e.g. gene manipulation. Gene manipulation, to me, is not a clear example of something unatural. Whilst homosexuality for example, is clearly unatural (by examining body parts, procreation, etc.)
Re ants. Yes, I could have picked a better example, but I believe the example demonstrated my point, which is detailed in the 1st paragraph of this post.
Wakas
