Humanity VS Nature
I have heard this said many times in many ways. But this one example stuck with my memory. On the way back from a ski trip, the guy sitting next to me said that he really liked the ski resort. But then he decided that he needed to take that back because he couldn't be too positive about it. He said that the areas cleared for skiing are not natural so it isn't a good thing. If it was natural, then there would be trees all over the mountain.
Well we have to ask how on earth he defines the word "natural." But I think he perhaps defines it the way he uses it. I've heard it this way so many times.
p1)The way things would be without the activity of humans is natural.
p2)The way things are when humans do something is unnatural. (redundant)
p3)What is natural is good.
Now, I ask you, what is the conclusion?
c) Therefore, all human activity is bad.
I had to ask him, do humans have a right to exist on this planet? Do we also not belong here? If a beaver cuts down a tree it's natural, but if a human cuts one down it is not? Are we not also native to this world? Furthermore, is it not natural for me to be as blind as a bat? I can't see a thing without glasses or contacts. So should I go natural and have someone drive me around? But honestly, is any human allowed to exist at all anywhere on this planet? Is there some other planet where we are allowed to live?
Of course it's only a few who actually advocate killing humans to help the earth. But such people do exist. On the other hand, isn't human population growth often considered a bad thing?
Before Christianity entered the Roman Empire, human life was not considered sacred. Most wealthy families only had one girl. This was because infanticide, abortion and abandoning of babies was common. It was really really common. Girls were considered a drain on the family and boys were a blessing. But they killed any boys that looked weak, deformed or were simply unwanted. Christians amazed the Romans by considering such things murder. They went and raised all the abandoned babies they could find. Christians abhorred the Gladiatorial spectacle of death. And it was Christianity that made all of these things illegal. Christianity innovated the concept of the sacredness of human life.
Before this, people wouldn't have found school shooting massacres to be abhorrent. Roman emperors often massacred people for amusement. Taking the life of an innocent was never a reason to feel guilty. Taking the life of an important person was. Nobody would have thought Columbine was a tragedy. Nero himself used to take a group of friends out in disguise and murder people in the street for fun. And nobody afterward batted an eye. Human life was a cheap thing.
Women were considered the property of a husband. Therefore a woman who slept with someone else was guilty of adultery and executed. The husband could perform this in cases of adultery without anyone's approval. But a promiscuous man could not commit adultery because it was the woman that was owned. Christianity innovated the idea of human equality as well. And Jesus taught that men could be guilty of adultery.
Human life was cheap to the Romans as well as the civilizations before them. Christianity taught that human life had a sacred value and totally reshaped our culture. But if human life is sacred, then is it not also possible for sacred humans to clear a path through the woods and it be a good praiseworthy thing? Why must the lively activity of sacred humans be automatically unnatural and bad?
p1)God made the world.
i1)Therefore, it belongs to God.
p2)God put humans in charge of it in Genesis.
c)Therefore humans are morally bound to run it the way God wants.
But God also made humans. All of the world God made and called good. But humans are called very good. And only humans are made in God's image. Gregory of Nyssa, (Ca. 375 AD) asked how slavery can be justified in light of the image of God. If man is made in God's image, then how much should the price of a slave be? What price can possibly reflect the value of a human life? Christians overwhelmingly preached, taught, wrote and finally made it into law. Human life is sacred.
p1)God made the world.
i1)Therefore the world is good.
p2)God also made us in His image.
12)Therefore we are good.
i3)Either humans must make changes or not exist.
It seems that it must be okay for humans to make changes to the world. Therefore, the question is which changes are good and which are not. Either that, and God didn't intend for humans to exist in this world Beyond this, it merely becomes a debate about the details of which change is for the better and which is for the worse. Ultimately humans have to make their best guesses and accept the consequences.
Genesis goes on. At first, God set up a garden in which humans could live. The garden had to be worked by man. But we can presume that Adam and Eve merely had to maintain what God had set up. After the fall, Adam and Eve are kicked out of the garden into a different world. The rest of the world was less hospitable. Humans were commanded to increase in number and fill the earth. And they were going to have to make changes to the world to survive. And this is a fact. The world we live in cannot support human life without making changes to it.
Humans must learn to defend themselves from predators, which might require killing them. This is especially true of microbial life. Humans must make clothing to survive. This has to be harvested somehow. You cannot simply pluck clothing from a tree like fruit. You have to kill a plant or animal. Well you can shear a sheep and make wool. But by that point you're very unnatural. Ever see any sheared sheep or wool clothing in nature? And humans have to eat. To fill the earth, humans have to innovate farming. Hunting and gathering has a high infant mortality rate. Humans have to build shelters, which are obviously unnatural. And humans have to cook food as well as burn wood for heat. No animal cooks its food. Cooking and fire are unnatural. But they are incredibly natural to humans. Humans can't survive without the unnatural thing called cooking. We lack the digestive capacities of animals. Think about how dogs eat poop like it's cinnamon buns. Cows eat grass.
It is important to say that "natural" has more than one meaning. It also means normal. But you can't get a moral code from something that is merely normal. This violates David Hume's IS-OUGHT distinction. The way things are cannot tell you how they should be. The way things usually are cannot either. Hume called this the Naturalist's Fallacy. If the way things are determined how they should be, then nothing bad would ever happen. Once it did, then it would be the way things are. Statements about the way something is are fundamentally different than statements about the way it should be.
Well we have to ask how on earth he defines the word "natural." But I think he perhaps defines it the way he uses it. I've heard it this way so many times.
p1)The way things would be without the activity of humans is natural.
p2)The way things are when humans do something is unnatural. (redundant)
p3)What is natural is good.
Now, I ask you, what is the conclusion?
c) Therefore, all human activity is bad.
I had to ask him, do humans have a right to exist on this planet? Do we also not belong here? If a beaver cuts down a tree it's natural, but if a human cuts one down it is not? Are we not also native to this world? Furthermore, is it not natural for me to be as blind as a bat? I can't see a thing without glasses or contacts. So should I go natural and have someone drive me around? But honestly, is any human allowed to exist at all anywhere on this planet? Is there some other planet where we are allowed to live?
Of course it's only a few who actually advocate killing humans to help the earth. But such people do exist. On the other hand, isn't human population growth often considered a bad thing?
Before Christianity entered the Roman Empire, human life was not considered sacred. Most wealthy families only had one girl. This was because infanticide, abortion and abandoning of babies was common. It was really really common. Girls were considered a drain on the family and boys were a blessing. But they killed any boys that looked weak, deformed or were simply unwanted. Christians amazed the Romans by considering such things murder. They went and raised all the abandoned babies they could find. Christians abhorred the Gladiatorial spectacle of death. And it was Christianity that made all of these things illegal. Christianity innovated the concept of the sacredness of human life.
Before this, people wouldn't have found school shooting massacres to be abhorrent. Roman emperors often massacred people for amusement. Taking the life of an innocent was never a reason to feel guilty. Taking the life of an important person was. Nobody would have thought Columbine was a tragedy. Nero himself used to take a group of friends out in disguise and murder people in the street for fun. And nobody afterward batted an eye. Human life was a cheap thing.
Women were considered the property of a husband. Therefore a woman who slept with someone else was guilty of adultery and executed. The husband could perform this in cases of adultery without anyone's approval. But a promiscuous man could not commit adultery because it was the woman that was owned. Christianity innovated the idea of human equality as well. And Jesus taught that men could be guilty of adultery.
Human life was cheap to the Romans as well as the civilizations before them. Christianity taught that human life had a sacred value and totally reshaped our culture. But if human life is sacred, then is it not also possible for sacred humans to clear a path through the woods and it be a good praiseworthy thing? Why must the lively activity of sacred humans be automatically unnatural and bad?
p1)God made the world.
i1)Therefore, it belongs to God.
p2)God put humans in charge of it in Genesis.
c)Therefore humans are morally bound to run it the way God wants.
But God also made humans. All of the world God made and called good. But humans are called very good. And only humans are made in God's image. Gregory of Nyssa, (Ca. 375 AD) asked how slavery can be justified in light of the image of God. If man is made in God's image, then how much should the price of a slave be? What price can possibly reflect the value of a human life? Christians overwhelmingly preached, taught, wrote and finally made it into law. Human life is sacred.
p1)God made the world.
i1)Therefore the world is good.
p2)God also made us in His image.
12)Therefore we are good.
i3)Either humans must make changes or not exist.
It seems that it must be okay for humans to make changes to the world. Therefore, the question is which changes are good and which are not. Either that, and God didn't intend for humans to exist in this world Beyond this, it merely becomes a debate about the details of which change is for the better and which is for the worse. Ultimately humans have to make their best guesses and accept the consequences.
Genesis goes on. At first, God set up a garden in which humans could live. The garden had to be worked by man. But we can presume that Adam and Eve merely had to maintain what God had set up. After the fall, Adam and Eve are kicked out of the garden into a different world. The rest of the world was less hospitable. Humans were commanded to increase in number and fill the earth. And they were going to have to make changes to the world to survive. And this is a fact. The world we live in cannot support human life without making changes to it.
Humans must learn to defend themselves from predators, which might require killing them. This is especially true of microbial life. Humans must make clothing to survive. This has to be harvested somehow. You cannot simply pluck clothing from a tree like fruit. You have to kill a plant or animal. Well you can shear a sheep and make wool. But by that point you're very unnatural. Ever see any sheared sheep or wool clothing in nature? And humans have to eat. To fill the earth, humans have to innovate farming. Hunting and gathering has a high infant mortality rate. Humans have to build shelters, which are obviously unnatural. And humans have to cook food as well as burn wood for heat. No animal cooks its food. Cooking and fire are unnatural. But they are incredibly natural to humans. Humans can't survive without the unnatural thing called cooking. We lack the digestive capacities of animals. Think about how dogs eat poop like it's cinnamon buns. Cows eat grass.
It is important to say that "natural" has more than one meaning. It also means normal. But you can't get a moral code from something that is merely normal. This violates David Hume's IS-OUGHT distinction. The way things are cannot tell you how they should be. The way things usually are cannot either. Hume called this the Naturalist's Fallacy. If the way things are determined how they should be, then nothing bad would ever happen. Once it did, then it would be the way things are. Statements about the way something is are fundamentally different than statements about the way it should be.
Comments
Post a Comment