"perfectly natural"?

[Kuznetzova]

To what degree can pointing out behaviors of wild animals among nature act as justification for human action?

If we hear from the conservative media circuit some claim that "homosexuality is not seen in the wild anywhere", we should not deride anyone for presenting contrary evidence from animals in the wild. If their intent is to clear up the facts, we should congratulate them on bringing clarity. But should a further step be taken, and that evidence then be used as justification or homosexuality?

It seems to (this author) that a person cannot commit fully to the abstract notion that any behavior observed among animals in a natural environment immediately justifies the analogous behavior in humans. The following faux assertions will illuminate the problem:

• Ants engage in warfare, therefore nature condones warfare. So it is perfectly natural and right that humans start wars and fight wars.
• Chimpanzees and lions commit murder, therefore murder among humans is perfectly natural, and therefore justified.
• Bonobos engage in lesbian sex, often with young females. Therefore, women having sex with adolescent girls is perfectly natural, and justified.
• Elk, deer, and goats engage in territorial aggression, and even have horns for this purpose. Territorial aggression is just how things are in the world. Therefore, the nations and races of the earth should compete for dominance. Further, racial competition is just the natural way of things.
• Bears will attack lions to gain territory and dominance, and kill them to protect their cubs. Therefore, humans are justified in hunting lions to extinction. It's only natural.

This author personally believes that all of the the above assertions are non-sequiturs. Despite this, belief in them is wildly popular among the laity.

It seems to me that we either must become vigilant in spotting this type of "Nature-justifies-it" argument when invoked by someone, and deal with each one of them on a case-by-case basis. We should be careful in determining whether the analogy between human action and animal behavior is fitting. Rape is also seen in the wild, in particular, among ducks. Ducks have genitalia that has actually evolved in response to rape. That is to say, ducks have been engaging in rape for arguably hundreds of thousands of generations. To continue to abide by the "Nature-justifies-it" rule begins to stretch the imagination to the breaking point here.

In the practice of actual discourse, I have decided to completely abandon the idea altogether , rather than simply being "vigilant" in spotting it. For the reasons of the duck and other examples, I do not believe it is any longer even valid to point at natural world as a justification for any human action at all. If you desire to join me on this intellectual pathway, then any discussion of the origin of our morals and ethics will need to take on a more sophisticated tone. The time-honored tradition of pontificating in the manner of: "the gorillas do it, so we should do it too!" is not going to float anymore.

[rantal]

Animals act to a large degree o their instincs (whether they are fully determined by such is open to debate) We as humans are free to go against our instincts, in fact doing such may be morally or value, thus insinctive behaviour is not excuse for behavior

all the best, rantal

[Bernard]

You speak of humans as though they are not animals. We belong to the animal kingdom. We are not so special as to be a species belonging to a kingdom all of its own. This is possibly the first great error of thinking we made.

Humans are an animal species that learned how to use and develop self reflection for survival purposes. Other animals do have a limited amount of self reflection that never gets emphasised in the way it does with us. It is actually only a minor adaptation which has been at great cost to other faculties. We don't have sonar, night vision, wings, land speed, insulation, camouflage, phosphorescence, etcetera. We only have the speciality of reason to really distinguish us - besides perhaps being upright, which has limited application.

To suggest that reason gives us the ability to behave without error is nonsensical when the evidence is so plainly against it. The simple observational and historical data displays to us that our behaviour is as prone to error and miss use of our organic facilities as any other organism, if not more so due to our rather desperate nature.

There are of course those humans who have developed the uncanny ability to distinguish them selves from other himans they deem to be evil, as though they were indeed another kingdom of 'pure' species on earth. There are special kind of glasses you can buy in order to become one of these type of pure humans.