Appeal to nature
An appeal to nature is a type of argument that depends on an understanding of nature as a source of intelligibility for its claims, and which relies on that understanding for its outcome.[clarification needed] To appeal to nature in an argument is to argue from a premise or premises implied by the concept of nature being invoked in that argument.[clarification needed]
As well as referring to individual arguments, "The appeal to nature" can refer to a group of arguments occurring in a particular subject or age, which involve certain understandings or opinions of nature.
Contents |
[edit] Classical origins
The meaning and importance of various understandings and concepts of "nature" has been a persistent topic of discussion historically in both science and philosophy. In Ancient Greece, “the laws of nature were regarded not [simply] as generalized descriptions of what actually happens in the natural world… but rather as norms that people ought to follow… Thus the appeal to nature tended to mean an appeal to the nature of man treated as a source for norms of conduct. To Greeks this… represented a conscious probing and exploration into an area wherein, according to their whole tradition of thought, lay the true source for norms of conduct.”[1]
Philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas held that the "good" was a process of actualization where the formal principle of a natural object fulfilled its final cause (purpose) such that a tree's purpose is to develop another tree or a bouncy ball's is to bounce. The formal principle to Aquinas was defined through Aristotle as "that which makes a thing what it is." Thus the source of potency to accomplish all natural object ends is through the formal cause of an object. For which Aquinas suggests a non-dualistic model for substance: Form and Matter. Aquinas held that what is good is what is natural in that God created all things and they were good. However, he argued from human reason rather than faith when he discussed the ontological significance. He suggested that the end (fulfillment of its purpose) is the good and there are various degrees of Good, such as the processes of development in a living being. Arguably, happiness is the ultimate end for all human beings and thus all morality is in reference to what actualizes this "happiness." But Aquinas argued that there was an objective principle, not relative, which accomplished self-actualization. A simple example is that drugs simulate happiness but are only "apparent/false" happiness while integrity, reason, and love all flow with nature and therefore permit actualization of the ultimate end: happiness.
[edit] Modern developments
In modern times, philosophers have challenged the notion that human beings' status as natural beings should determine or dictate their normative being. For example, Rousseau famously suggested that "We do not know what our nature permits us to be."[2] More recently, Nikolas Kompridis has applied Rousseau's axiom to debates about genetic intervention (or other kinds of intervention) into the biological basis of human life, writing:
[T]here is a domain of human freedom not dictated by our biological nature, but [this] is somewhat unnerving because it leaves uncomfortably open what kind of beings human beings could become… Put another way: What are we prepared to permit our nature to be? And on what basis should we give our permission?
Kompridis writes that the naturalistic view of living things, articulated by one scientist as that of "machines whose components are biochemicals"[3] (Rodney Brooks), threatens to make a single normative understanding of human being the only possible understanding. He writes, "When we regard ourselves as 'machines whose components are biochemicals,' we not only presume to know what our nature permits us to be, but also that this knowledge permits us to answer the question of what is to become of us… This is not a question we were meant to answer, but, rather, a question to which we must remain answerable."[4]
Philosophers such as Jacques Derrida, Bruno Latour and others have also questioned inherited understandings of nature in their work.
[edit] Rational argument
Opinions differ regarding appeal to nature in rational argument. Sometimes, it can be taken as a rule of thumb that admits some exceptions, but nonetheless proves to be of use in one or more specific topics, (or in general). As a rule of thumb, natural or unnatural facts provide presumptively reliable good or bad values, barring evidence to the contrary. Failure to consider such evidence commits a fallacy of accident under this view.[5][6]
An appeal to nature can sometimes be considered a fallacy of relevance which rejects the claim that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural or artificial. In this type of informal fallacy,[7] nature implies an ideal or desired state of being,[8] a state of how things were, or how they should be: in this sense an appeal to nature may resemble an appeal to tradition.
General form of this type of argument:[5]
- N is natural.
- Therefore, N is good or right.
- U is unnatural.
- Therefore, U is bad or wrong.
In some contexts, the meanings of "nature" and "natural" can be vague, leading to unintended associations with other concepts. The word "natural" can also be a loaded term — much like the word "normal", in some contexts, it can carry an implicit value judgement. An appeal to nature would thus beg the question, because the conclusion is entailed by the premise.[5]
Skeptic Julian Baggini argues: "[E]ven if we can agree that some things are natural and some are not, what follows from this? The answer is: nothing. There is no factual reason to suppose that what is natural is good (or at least better) and what is unnatural is bad (or at least worse)."[9]
Many agencies do distinguish between natural and non-natural cases, e.g. the USFDA states "Natural ingredients are derived from natural sources ... Other ingredients are not found in nature and therefore must be synthetically produced as artificial ingredients."[1] it also states, that under its regulations "Food ingredients are subject to the same strict safety standards regardless of whether they are naturally or artificially derived."
In European and Canadian law, extra health and safety requirements exist for authorisation of novel foods:
In Europe novel foods are defined as [2]:
- Food ingredients having no history of “significant” consumption in the European Union prior to 15 May 1997.
In Canada as [3]:
- Products that have never been used as food,
- Foods that result from a process that has not been previously used for food, or,
- Foods that have undergone genetic modification and have new traits.
While the classification of novel differs from natural here, both essentially involve the subjects history or lack of. Natural foods usually have histories of consumption (sometimes very long histories, by humans and/or human ancestors), so they usually do not qualify as novel, thus it is mainly artificial foods (with short histories or none) that do. This situation demonstrates that the property of being "natural" can infer facts which are relevant to health and safety considerations, at least in relation to food.
[edit] Similar arguments
In G.E. Moore's 1903 Principia Ethica, Moore discusses another notable concept which he calls the naturalistic fallacy, and claims that many appeals to nature in ethics are made without defining what is supposed to be good about nature or natural properties – instead only assuming they are good.
In its cogency and real-world applicability, Moore's formulation of the naturalistic fallacy can be problematic, partly because, by his own admission, Moore was talking about a form of reductionism that can be found across philosophical perspectives, not just in naturalistic arguments. [4][5] However, his arguments are still influential in some strains of popular discourse.
[edit] Advertising
Some popular examples of the appeal to nature can be found on labels and advertisements for food, clothing, and alternative herbal remedies.[9] Labels may use the phrase "all-natural", to imply that products are Environmentally friendly and/or safe. However, many toxic substances are found in nature, including in common plant sources and herbs such as hemlock, nightshade, belladonna, and poisonous mushrooms, and these may have serious side effects.
It has therefore been suggested that whether or not a product is "natural" is irrelevant, in itself, in determining its safety or effectiveness.[9][10] For instance, Cocaine is sometimes described as an "all-natural medicine"[citation needed] derived from the coca plant, and which was prescribed for many years for everything from chest colds to depression, yet it is also highly addictive and can have serious and lasting deleterious effects. This description of Cocaine is however controversial, Cocaine is a chemical extraction of the coca plant, whose leaves are chewed as a medicine and tonic in traditional Andean culture. The most dangerous form of the drug crack cocaine is the form which is most processed and altered from the natural source. The same relationship is present between opium, its active compound morphine, and its diacetyl salt heroin.
[edit] Relevance of Natural Selection
It has been claimed that our synthesis of natural materials and invention of new materials is susceptible to mistakes which pre-existing natural ones have been naturally selected against [6]. The processes of natural selection can be observed to adapt and generally improve the fitness of living creatures in response to changes in their environment. It manages this, to the extent that it is the process considered responsible for the vast and complex array of life which has evolved to date. It can be argued that due to the lack of natural selection, the more unnatural a thing is, the greater its potential for disruption to natural systems and organisms.
[edit] Examples of Synthetic Design Failures
There are unfortunate examples of unnatural products or practices having resulted in bad consequences after a period of adoption and acceptance,[7] e.g. the feeding of processed meat to herbivorous cattle caused BSE and new variant CJD outbreaks,[8] the superior qualities of natural breast milk over infant formula which took decades to establish scientifically [9], and the now widely acknowledged impacts of smoking on human health. In addition, trans fats resulting from the process of hydrogenation are widely seen as a health risk and have been banned in several countries.
[edit] See also
- Chemophobia
- Environmentalism
- Ethical naturalism
- Greenwashing
- Green brands
- Green marketing
- Human nature
- Naturalistic fallacy - a fallacy often assumed to mean the same thing.
- Natural kind
- Natural justice
- Natural law
- Natural selection
- Norm (philosophy)
- Technophobia
[edit] References
- ^ Saunders, Jason Lewis (26 October 2008). "Western Philosophical Schools and Doctrines: Ancient and Medieval Schools: Sophists: Particular Doctrines: Theoretical issues.". Encyclopaedia Britannica. http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5004_99_82.html. Retrieved 07 February 2011.
- ^ Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile: or, On education, USA: Basic Books, 1979, 62
- ^ “The current scientific view of living things is that they are machines whose components are biochemicals.” Rodney Brooks, "The relationship between matter and life", Nature 409 (2010), 410.
- ^ Nikolas Kompridis, "Technology's Challenge to Democracy: What of the Human?", Parrhesia Number 8 (2009), 23-31.
- ^ a b c Curtis, Gary N. (15 November 2010). "Fallacy Files — Appeal to Nature". fallacyfiles.org. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html. Retrieved 13 February 2011.
- ^ Groarke, Leo (2008). "Informal Logic". In Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/logic-informal#Fal. "Informal logic is sometimes presented as a theoretical alternative to formal logic. This kind of characterization may reflect early battles in philosophy departments which debated, sometimes with acrimony, whether informal logic should be considered "real" logic. Today, informal logic enjoys a more conciliatory relationship with formal logic. Its attempt to understand informal reasoning is usually (but not always) couched in natural language, but research in informal logic sometimes employs formal methods and it remains an open question whether the accounts of argument in which informal logic specializes can in principle be formalized."
- ^ Groarke, Leo (2008). "Informal Logic". In Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/logic-informal#Fal. "[... 3. Fallacy Theory ...] Early work in informal logic does not favour a systematic attempt to assess the strength and properties of good deductive, inductive, conductive, etc. arguments. Instead, it favours fallacies as a tool in the analysis of informal reasoning. According to traditional accounts, a fallacy is a pattern of poor reasoning which appears to be (and in this sense mimics) a pattern of good reasoning (see Hansen [2002]). Such accounts are problematic, especially because it is difficult to identify when poor reasoning "appears" to be good. What "appears good" to one person may not appear so to another. In assessing ordinary arguments, most contemporary commentators avoid such issues by understanding fallacies more simply, as common patterns of poor reasoning which can usefully be identified in the evaluation of informal reasoning."
- ^ Woman's rights and duties considered with relation to their influence on society and on her own condition, by a woman. Vol. I. London: John W. Parker. 1840. p. 6. http://books.google.com/books?id=rOoDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA6.
- ^ a b c Baggini, Julian (2004). Making sense: philosophy behind the headlines. Oxford University Press. pp. 181–182. ISBN 978-0192805065.
- ^ Flew, Antony (1998). How to Think Straight: An Introduction to Critical Reasoning. Prometheus Books. ISBN 9781573922395.
[edit] External links
- Nature, Human Nature, and Biotechnology
- Appeal to Nature
- Dietary Supplements: How To Know What Is Safe American Cancer Society: §The "Natural Is Safe" or "Natural Is Better" Myth (Archived from the original 18 April 2008)
