5 ms·

By your definition, everything that ever happens is natuaral. That makes the word completely meaningless.

by geon 11y ago

pluma 11y ago
Yes, but what gave you the idea that "natural" equals "good"? I'm using the term entirely objectively. Of course everything that happens in nature is "natural". That's what the word means. The distinction I'm making should be obvious: a behaviour that happens in other, closely-related animals, especially if it happens quite frequently, and especially if it is "beneficial" in natural selection (like lions killing their young, chimps raiding and murdering other groups or dolphins engaging in gang rapes), is by definition "natural" and shouldn't be surprising if it occurs in humans. Non-consensual sex (i.e. rape in the most straightforward sense) is one such behaviour. That it shouldn't be surprising doesn't mean we should tolerate it or that we can't do anything about it. We're in the quasi-uniquely privileged position that we can reason about our collective behaviour and decide what kind of behaviour we do or don't want to tolerate and what we can do about it. In other words, because we're capable of sculpting our own human nature, yes, the term "natural" is pretty arbitrary when it comes to human behaviour. But it's entirely appropriate when looking at how other species behave without our interference.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  You're trying to be reasonable and logical, which is good. But I think you err in looking to animals to define what is natural behavior for humans. Doing that collapses the enormous gulf which lies between animals and humans. And it also generalizes across all humans. Instead, I think it's better to consider what is "natural" for certain societies and cultures. For example, most people in average, relatively prosperous Western countries (and many Eastern ones) would not "naturally" treat another human being the way the "clients" in the article do. A few sociopaths, but that's a very small percentage of the population. Why? I think it's pretty simple: it's how people are raised. Children who are raised by loving parents, taught to treat others well, disciplined when they don't, grow up to be adults who wouldn't dream of doing such a thing. But a child who is raised by abusive parents, who witnesses the parents treating others like animals, may grow up and emulate that behavior. If they are taught that it's acceptable to treat other humans like animals and property, then that is what they will do. Nature vs. nurture is a bit of a false dichotomy. No one grows up in a vacuum. People are shaped by family, society, culture. People tend to emulate what they see. Getting people to change their behavior and values by reasoning with them is very difficult, and impossible with some people. This is an element that seems sorely lacking in the article: there's no mention of cultural and societal values. She mentions corruption in police and judicial systems, and she calls for unilateral, cross-border action--which would effectively be going to war. She doesn't recognize that you can't fix those problems by going to war, because war doesn't rewrite societal values. (On the other hand, one might point to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and post-WWII as counter-examples, but I think that is a bit different: it was a world war, and the nations were occupied for many years afterwards, and a government had arose which lead the people in evil ways. The cultures weren't necessarily innately evil in their values.) The reason human trafficking flourishes in these places and police and judicial corruption allow it to continue is that the societal values are corrupt. There's an element of oppressive governments not accurately reflecting the values of the people as well, but still, the government isn't forcing these atrocities to occur. And to bring it back to where we started: by defining "natural" by what seems natural to animals, you perpetuate the problem. Animals have no concept of right and wrong. Human trafficking and slavery are wrong because they are wrong, because they are evil. You might say that that's circular reasoning, but if we agree on that basic morality, regardless of where it comes from, then it stands. And therefore, the reason these other places continue to allow it is because of defective moral values in a large percentage of the population. That isn't a popular thing to say, because it's "judgmental." Well, yes, I do judge that that behavior is abhorrent, and that the people engaging in it and permitting it are acting abhorrently. And if you want to argue that it's not a result of defective cultural values, you'll have to do better than an "animal nature"-based argument, because that would logically erase cultural differences. And, no, a few outliers in cultures that largely don't have the same problem do not wash away the distinctions. Some cultures do have better moral values than others. (If you disagree with this, you're a moral relativist, and there's no basis for discussing it.)
  - pluma 11y ago
    I don't think we're fundamentally in disagreement, but I object the notion that people raised in Western countries wouldn't behave like the "clients" in the article do. "Culture" isn't as simple as that -- social norms differ widely within Western cultures and even at the regional or family level. Based on older stories about human trafficking, a lot of "patrons" hail from countries we would consider better than that, and many of them are middle-class or even upper-class, so it's not just a matter of social status either. Yes, it's difficult to change someone's behaviour by talking at them. The only reliable long-term change in behaviour can be brought about during childhood. Just consider religion: sure, there are adult converts, but a fraction of adults converts from the religion they were raised in to another. A person's religion (and religiosity) is mostly an artefact of how and where they grew up. > Human trafficking and slavery are wrong because they are wrong, because they are evil. Evil is an intuitive but ultimately ineffective concept. These behaviours are harmful both to the individual and to society at large. They unilaterally violate the personal liberty and human rights of the victim. That's why we consider them evil, not the other way around. I'm defining natural in terms of animal behaviour because it's the closest we can get in order to draw conclusions about how humans would behave in the absence of ethics and a functioning society. Rape and murder in cold blood are what we see in extreme situations where society has effectively collapsed (e.g. during war, starvation or epidemics). There's a reason we say people act like animals in these situations: it's because they do. Starvation, anxiety, duress, etc, they all impact a person's capability of rational thought and lead to people following their most basic instincts. Many people still act "human" in these situations, but in general, you're going to see far more horrific behaviour than otherwise (especially if "one thing leads to another", e.g. because of group dynamics). Also, if we understand that slavery is wrong not just because it is evil, but because it is demonstrably incompatible with a notion of right and wrong based on minimizing human suffering while maximum personal liberty, it is obvious why it is objectionable to tolerate cultures that consider this behaviour acceptable. In other words, aside from the ethically neutral aspects of a culture (e.g. creation myths, funny hats and silly rituals), one culture can be objectively better or worse than another. Of course changing worse cultures for the better is a long and time-consuming process. The recent failures in the Middle East and the Arab world are good examples of why you can't just invade a place and force the inhabitants to adopt modern values. But teaching someone to be a good person is much easier when they're well-fed and don't have to fear for their life, health or fortune. (For the record, this isn't about Islam or Christianity or even any religion at all -- any culture that perpetuates harmful values has to change, whether those values are based on religion, tradition or mere lack of consideration; religions just tend to get more offended when you try to tell them they are wrong.)

By your definition, everything that ever happens is natuaral. That makes the word completely meaningless.

by geon 11y ago

By your definition, everything that ever happens is natuaral. That makes the word completely meaningless.

pluma 11y ago

Yes, but what gave you the idea that "natural" equals "good"? I'm using the term entirely objectively. Of course everything that happens in nature is "natural". That's what the word means. The distinction I'm making should be obvious: a behaviour that happens in other, closely-related animals, especially if it happens quite frequently, and especially if it is "beneficial" in natural selection (like lions killing their young, chimps raiding and murdering other groups or dolphins engaging in gang rapes), is by definition "natural" and shouldn't be surprising if it occurs in humans. Non-consensual sex (i.e. rape in the most straightforward sense) is one such behaviour. That it shouldn't be surprising doesn't mean we should tolerate it or that we can't do anything about it. We're in the quasi-uniquely privileged position that we can reason about our collective behaviour and decide what kind of behaviour we do or don't want to tolerate and what we can do about it. In other words, because we're capable of sculpting our own human nature, yes, the term "natural" is pretty arbitrary when it comes to human behaviour. But it's entirely appropriate when looking at how other species behave without our interference.

alphapapa 11y ago
You're trying to be reasonable and logical, which is good. But I think you err in looking to animals to define what is natural behavior for humans. Doing that collapses the enormous gulf which lies between animals and humans. And it also generalizes across all humans. Instead, I think it's better to consider what is "natural" for certain societies and cultures. For example, most people in average, relatively prosperous Western countries (and many Eastern ones) would not "naturally" treat another human being the way the "clients" in the article do. A few sociopaths, but that's a very small percentage of the population. Why? I think it's pretty simple: it's how people are raised. Children who are raised by loving parents, taught to treat others well, disciplined when they don't, grow up to be adults who wouldn't dream of doing such a thing. But a child who is raised by abusive parents, who witnesses the parents treating others like animals, may grow up and emulate that behavior. If they are taught that it's acceptable to treat other humans like animals and property, then that is what they will do. Nature vs. nurture is a bit of a false dichotomy. No one grows up in a vacuum. People are shaped by family, society, culture. People tend to emulate what they see. Getting people to change their behavior and values by reasoning with them is very difficult, and impossible with some people. This is an element that seems sorely lacking in the article: there's no mention of cultural and societal values. She mentions corruption in police and judicial systems, and she calls for unilateral, cross-border action--which would effectively be going to war. She doesn't recognize that you can't fix those problems by going to war, because war doesn't rewrite societal values. (On the other hand, one might point to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and post-WWII as counter-examples, but I think that is a bit different: it was a world war, and the nations were occupied for many years afterwards, and a government had arose which lead the people in evil ways. The cultures weren't necessarily innately evil in their values.) The reason human trafficking flourishes in these places and police and judicial corruption allow it to continue is that the societal values are corrupt. There's an element of oppressive governments not accurately reflecting the values of the people as well, but still, the government isn't forcing these atrocities to occur. And to bring it back to where we started: by defining "natural" by what seems natural to animals, you perpetuate the problem. Animals have no concept of right and wrong. Human trafficking and slavery are wrong because they are wrong, because they are evil. You might say that that's circular reasoning, but if we agree on that basic morality, regardless of where it comes from, then it stands. And therefore, the reason these other places continue to allow it is because of defective moral values in a large percentage of the population. That isn't a popular thing to say, because it's "judgmental." Well, yes, I do judge that that behavior is abhorrent, and that the people engaging in it and permitting it are acting abhorrently. And if you want to argue that it's not a result of defective cultural values, you'll have to do better than an "animal nature"-based argument, because that would logically erase cultural differences. And, no, a few outliers in cultures that largely don't have the same problem do not wash away the distinctions. Some cultures do have better moral values than others. (If you disagree with this, you're a moral relativist, and there's no basis for discussing it.)
- pluma 11y ago
  I don't think we're fundamentally in disagreement, but I object the notion that people raised in Western countries wouldn't behave like the "clients" in the article do. "Culture" isn't as simple as that -- social norms differ widely within Western cultures and even at the regional or family level. Based on older stories about human trafficking, a lot of "patrons" hail from countries we would consider better than that, and many of them are middle-class or even upper-class, so it's not just a matter of social status either. Yes, it's difficult to change someone's behaviour by talking at them. The only reliable long-term change in behaviour can be brought about during childhood. Just consider religion: sure, there are adult converts, but a fraction of adults converts from the religion they were raised in to another. A person's religion (and religiosity) is mostly an artefact of how and where they grew up. > Human trafficking and slavery are wrong because they are wrong, because they are evil. Evil is an intuitive but ultimately ineffective concept. These behaviours are harmful both to the individual and to society at large. They unilaterally violate the personal liberty and human rights of the victim. That's why we consider them evil, not the other way around. I'm defining natural in terms of animal behaviour because it's the closest we can get in order to draw conclusions about how humans would behave in the absence of ethics and a functioning society. Rape and murder in cold blood are what we see in extreme situations where society has effectively collapsed (e.g. during war, starvation or epidemics). There's a reason we say people act like animals in these situations: it's because they do. Starvation, anxiety, duress, etc, they all impact a person's capability of rational thought and lead to people following their most basic instincts. Many people still act "human" in these situations, but in general, you're going to see far more horrific behaviour than otherwise (especially if "one thing leads to another", e.g. because of group dynamics). Also, if we understand that slavery is wrong not just because it is evil, but because it is demonstrably incompatible with a notion of right and wrong based on minimizing human suffering while maximum personal liberty, it is obvious why it is objectionable to tolerate cultures that consider this behaviour acceptable. In other words, aside from the ethically neutral aspects of a culture (e.g. creation myths, funny hats and silly rituals), one culture can be objectively better or worse than another. Of course changing worse cultures for the better is a long and time-consuming process. The recent failures in the Middle East and the Arab world are good examples of why you can't just invade a place and force the inhabitants to adopt modern values. But teaching someone to be a good person is much easier when they're well-fed and don't have to fear for their life, health or fortune. (For the record, this isn't about Islam or Christianity or even any religion at all -- any culture that perpetuates harmful values has to change, whether those values are based on religion, tradition or mere lack of consideration; religions just tend to get more offended when you try to tell them they are wrong.)