Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Nature

AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 5:25:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why do people argue that something being natural or unnatural makes it right or wrong? I've never understood this myself.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 5:35:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 5:25:53 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Why do people argue that something being natural or unnatural makes it right or wrong? I've never understood this myself.

because they accept and assert their feelings as being the source of coming to what Should happen...

Granted, they usually do a sh*t job of it.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 5:40:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 5:35:56 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/5/2012 5:25:53 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Why do people argue that something being natural or unnatural makes it right or wrong? I've never understood this myself.

because they accept and assert their feelings as being the source of coming to what Should happen...

Granted, they usually do a sh*t job of it.

it's what people say when they're unaccustomed to, unaware of, or somehow ashamed of arguing based upon what they care about.

It is better to be more clear and use more precise terms... Like saying: I care about X.. want it to be the case, would enjoy it's being the case.. and so would seek to make X happen... I would have it happen.. Think it Should happen.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 5:42:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 5:25:53 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Why do people argue that something being natural or unnatural makes it right or wrong? I've never understood this myself.

Because objective right and wrong doesn't exist....so a reference to the state of nature is the best argument people have to enforce their "ethics" on other people.

I understand the is-ought fallacy,...but I think it's redundant. Ought-fallacy would suffice.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 5:44:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 5:42:00 AM, 000ike wrote:
Because objective right and wrong doesn't exist....so a reference to the state of nature is the best argument people have to enforce their "ethics" on other people.

well, it can be a good argument.. If we're naturally similar in sufficient degree, it may (in certain cases) only make sense that you would have something be the way I would want it...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 5:47:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 5:44:59 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
well, it can be a good argument.. If we're naturally similar in sufficient degree, it may (in certain cases) only make sense that you would have something be the way I would want it...

Just a matter of clearing up that we Do, at the end of the day have the same (relevant) cares... and then coming to the same understanding of the nature of things..

Granted, in cases where we compete (like lets say we're both hungry and want the last biscuit) we may be similar but would have the world go different ways :/
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 5:59:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The naturalistic fallacy (this is how things are, therefore this is how it ought to be) is fallacious, as it's basically the argument from tradition. No idea why it is still popular though.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 6:03:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
How bout:
This is how we are... So, from that, here are the two long lists of what You and what I would have happen.

On those ones there we're in agreement!!! b/c of how we Are!

Therefore.. lets do them :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 6:04:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 6:03:13 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
On those ones there

by this I don't mean the whole list.. I mean to suggest I'm pointing out a portion of the list.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 6:08:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Mattrosdrom (can't spell), what do you think emotion is the best evaluator?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 6:12:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Either as a reference to a natural 'squick' feeling that people have when they encounter something (polygamy, incest, homosexuality, bestiality), or as a reference to the moral theory of natural law (see: Contradiction).
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 6:16:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 6:08:55 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Mattrosdrom (can't spell), what do you think emotion is the best evaluator?

emotions and Feeling generally... (like how I'd evaluate to move my hand if it were roasting over a flame)

I think emotions/feelings are the only legitimate source of coming to Evaluate what one should do because they're the only things that are of Force to people.

There is no reason to move your hand from that Flame, But that it burns.. Or But that you'd find enjoyment doing doing something else..

Reasoning alone does not bring suggestive force... Reasoning out what to do Given that you're trying to fulfill Emotions/Feelings is Forceful.

Emotions are the source of motives
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 3:34:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 5:35:56 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/5/2012 5:25:53 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Why do people argue that something being natural or unnatural makes it right or wrong? I've never understood this myself.

because they accept and assert their feelings as being the source of coming to what Should happen...

Granted, they usually do a sh*t job of it.

well said
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 5:50:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 5:25:53 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Why do people argue that something being natural or unnatural makes it right or wrong? I've never understood this myself.

The Fool: The term natural used today has been rendered useless,

It came from Aristotle, and it mean "essential properties' that is he necessary condition for the existence of something.

But the inconsistence of it use over time has made it ambigous.

for there is Natural as in nature-humans

Natural as in sense data(information coming in the five senses)

Natural as in normal. (in respect to common, or the normal bell curve)

Natural as in nature including humans(as part of evolution)
Not the contradiction here. In human Being natural.

natural to the body, as in chemical (which of course are within nature or led or poisen) are in nature, but not natural to the body, aka harmfull.

There is natural as in a natural mind. This use is inconsistent. within the population

"people argue that something being natural or unnatural makes it right or wrong? I've never understood this myself.

The Fool: Good, ITs called Naturalistic Fallacy.
and there is Natural Naturalistice fallacy. when someone claim the fallacy but of the wrong kind of use of Natural . .Straight From the Hill!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 5:54:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: The first one was to mean, Natural as in nature minus humans.

Where human actions are Artificial . . that is where we get the word, ART as well.

but techically is we are part of evolution. There is no such things as artificial, because as part of nature what every we do is natural. Even if we blow of the Planet!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Websterremembered
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 1:18:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 5:25:53 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Why do people argue that something being natural or unnatural makes it right or wrong? I've never understood this myself.
it would seem that something being unnatural would take it out of the equation
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 1:51:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 5:25:53 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Why do people argue that something being natural or unnatural makes it right or wrong? I've never understood this myself.

They argue that because they are fallacious. You don't understand it because it makes no sense. :D
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Nome
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 6:14:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is a matter of our base start for understanding, not a base start on the actual nature which is separate from us and our understanding. We can still recognize nature as right, for that is semantics, and still choose to defy it and be our own good.