Are unnatural things bad?  Are natural things good?  Is behaviour that we don't see humans normally do bad if some humans choose to do it?  Does the uniquely human define the good? Or does the ideally human define the good?  Is natural better than artificial?  Does ‘it’ being natural make ‘it’ OK?

1.5.5   Natural behaviour is not necessarily good, and supposedly unnatural behaviour is not necessarily bad.  We can't infer ethical rules from simple facts.  What is doesn’t tell what ought to be.  We must work out what is good another way.

          Something that is uniquely human isn't necessarily good.  Even the most ideal aspects of human behaviour don't of themselves tell us what is good.

          Nor can we use notions of god’s plan for the world, or the supposed perfection of the natural world, to determine what is good or bad, because we don't know and can’t agree on what god’s plan is or what is perfection in nature.

          Similarly complex manufactured things, and the use of high technology, doesn’t of itself makes those thinks bad: we must distinguish between the complex, technically advanced, artificial things which over the long term promote human or animal welfare, and those which are destructive, harmful or wasteful.

          And while we can't say ‘unnatural’ behaviours or things are bad, it would be unworkable, unskilful, plain silly, to devise or promote ethical guides that most people are emotionally, intellectually, or physically incapable of complying with.

          And finally, while being ‘natural’ doesn’t by itself make a thing or behaviour good, being able to see that it occurs in other species, other societies and other people eliminates some of the arguments against supposedly unnatural behaviour, and can help us to lose or modify negative emotional responses, such as anger, disgust, shame, embarrassment, fear and so on.

          We may need to control what appears to be ‘natural’ behaviour, or modify our ethical expectations if what we expect of people is too much.

  more