# On the non-validity of "arguments from nature" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 27, 2010, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048 "2010-11-27T03:59:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sundog66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@sundog66](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sundog66)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/1 "2010-11-27T03:59:38Z")
At least once, although possibly not on this board, I have encountered an argument along the following lines: “Animals in nature engage in homosexual behavior, therefore human homosexual behavior should be tolerated.” I contend that such arguments from nature (i.e., “animals {do/do not} engage in behavior x, therefore humans {should/should not} engage in behavior x”), should be dismissed as invalid and useless. I can show that this argument is invalid even if we overlook its absurd presupposition that humans are not themselves animals. My argument for this viewpoint will proceed via two instances of syllogistic _reductio ad absurdum_, the first illustrating the positive variant of the argument, and the second illustrating the negative variant. Syllogism 1 Premise 1: Members of the spider species _Stegodyphus lineatus_ eat their own mothers. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stegodyphus\_lineatus#Behaviour](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stegodyphus_lineatus#Behaviour) Premise 2: If animals engage in behavior x, then humans should engage in behavior x. Conclusion: Humans should eat their own mothers. Syllogism 2 Premise 1: No animals have developed systems of written communication. Premise 2: If animals do not engage in behavior x, then humans should not engage in behavior x. Conclusion: Humans should not develop systems of written communication. I contend that: (a) Both of the above syllogisms are logically valid. (b) Both of the initial premises are sound. (c) The conclusions are misguided. I therefore conclude: (d) Neither of the secondary premises are sound. Hence the argument from nature is invalid. It is an insult to homosexuals to suggest that we must look to non-human animals to arbitrate the acceptability of their behavior. The acceptability of homosexual behavior, and any kind of human behavior, in general, should rather be arbitrated on other bases. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/2 "2010-11-27T04:03:52Z")
The only reason this argument is used is because its inverse was previously used by the other side. Homosexuality couldn’t be natural (and thus acceptable in humans) if animals didn’t do it. When the premise was proven incorrect, the other side couldn’t help but point it out. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/3 "2010-11-27T04:07:03Z")
Generally gay animals arguments are addressing the proposition that homosexuality is “unnatural” or learned, which tends to be a load of garbage. Being gay is a natural condition, as animals, and twin studies show. Therefor it can’t be unnatural by definition. ---
**Author:** ![sundog66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@sundog66](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sundog66)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/4 "2010-11-27T04:09:53Z")
**BigT** , that’s very interesting for historical context, but I still think it’s damaging to continue to trot this argument out. Tacit in the argument is that if we woke up tomorrow and all non-human animals had ceased their homosexual behavior, then we’d have to go back to condemning it in humans. Ridiculous. We need instead to step back and ask more fundamental questions about why non-human animals should be figuring at all in debates about human morality and ethics. ---
**Author:** ![sundog66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@sundog66](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sundog66)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/5 "2010-11-27T04:13:29Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Generally gay animals arguments are addressing the proposition that homosexuality is “unnatural” or learned, which tends to be a load of garbage. Being gay is a natural condition, as animals, and twin studies show. Therefor it can’t be unnatural by definition. Okay, so it’s natural. Who cares? Every day millions of people: -take a shower -brush their teeth -heat their breakfast in a microwave -drive a car to work I doubt many homophobes have a problem with any of these behaviors, even if they’re not found in “nature”, which would suggest that they’re being disingenuous when they criticize homosexuality on the basis that it is unnatural. Hence my distaste for playing into the validity of this argument. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/6 "2010-11-27T04:23:43Z")
Well if it’s their natural condition then discriminating against gays is just same as discriminating against people because of their race, hair color, gender, or anything like that. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/7 "2010-11-27T04:29:29Z")
Pointing out that it is natural undercuts some of their favorite lies; that homosexuals are trying to convert people, that there is some sort of threat that enough people will be “converted” to become a threat to species survival somehow, and that homosexuals can be converted to straight people. None of that works once you acknowledge that homosexuality is natural and therefore not a choice. ---
**Author:** ![sundog66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@sundog66](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sundog66)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/8 "2010-11-27T04:47:13Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Well if it’s their natural condition then discriminating against gays is just same as discriminating against people because of their race, hair color, gender, or anything like that. Okay, I think this is an excellent point. But there’s something I find distasteful about this whole enterprise, whether it’s about sexual orientation, hair color, race, or anything else. Pleas along the lines of, “Don’t blame him…he can’t help it that he’s black”, may be technically true, but they are mind-bogglingly insulting and condescending. Nobody should have to “apologize” for their blackness or whatever on the basis of its natural provenance. If it’s a category that is not inherently harmful (based on whatever metric for harm we decide is appropriate) then that should be enough in itself. To take an example at the other extreme, let’s say scientists discovered (and maybe they have…I’m completely ignorant on this matter) that pedophilia occurs in nature. Should it therefore be sanctioned in humans? Again, this points to the same conclusion: nature is irrelevant in adjudicating the acceptability of human behavior. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Pointing out that it is natural undercuts some of their favorite lies; that homosexuals are trying to convert people, that there is some sort of threat that enough people will be “converted” to become a threat to species survival somehow, and that homosexuals can be converted to straight people. None of that works once you acknowledge that homosexuality is natural and therefore not a choice. Yes, I see how the argument from nature can be of some practical value. Yet all of these claims/lies can be addressed on their own face value without appealing to nature. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/9 "2010-11-27T04:54:19Z")
Well being gay involves consensual sex with adults, where as pedophilia involves rape of children who are not yet mental fit to consent and can suffer significant psychological damage. Quite frankly the pedophilia comparison is pretty offensive, and the two have nothing to do with each other. ---
**Author:** ![sundog66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@sundog66](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sundog66)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/10 "2010-11-27T05:00:38Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Well being gay involves consensual sex with adults, where as pedophilia involves rape of children who are not yet mental fit to consent and can suffer significant psychological damage. > > Quite frankly the pedophilia comparison is pretty offensive, and the two have nothing to do with each other. Thank you! That is exactly in harmony with my point. The key thing to observe here is that nothing you said about why homosexuality is fine but pedophilia is not had anything to do with nature. And this is as it should be, I contend. ---
**Author:** ![sundog66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@sundog66](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sundog66)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/11 "2010-11-27T05:05:43Z")
And as an afterthought, I think it’s worthwhile to show that my point can be made as well using different behaviors as examples, behaviors that are not associated with such hot-button issues and hence less likely to result in comparisons that people find offensive. -It is wrong to walk into a crowded setting and start shooting innocent people indiscriminately. -It is okay to take a short nap in the afternoon. Neither of these value judgments depend on any appeal to nature. And I hope I do not offend any afternoon nap-takers by comparing y’all to rampage shooters. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/12 "2010-11-27T05:06:52Z")
> [@sundog66](#): > > Thank you! That is exactly in harmony with my point. The key thing to observe here is that nothing you said about why homosexuality is fine but pedophilia is not had anything to do with nature. And this is as it should be, I contend. I mostly agree with you. My hesitation is that claims that homosexuality are unnatural are factually incorrect, and I think it’s okay to correct someone on the facts. That correction can then be followed up by philosophical points similar to the ones you’re making, namely, that who gives a shit if it’s natural? I find “natural” to be a useless concept when evaluating the morality of a particular course of action, whether it’s vaccinating kids or having buttsex or eating animals or getting married or cooking food or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/13 "2010-11-27T05:12:40Z")
You are either misstating or misunderstanding the reason for pointing out homosexual behavior in animals. The argument is not “Animals do it, so therefore it’s ok.” The point is made merely to counter the stupidity of people saying it should _not_ be tolerated because it’s “unnatural.” It’s a _counter_ to a bad argument _against_ homosexuality. It’s not an argument _for_ anything. It’s a factual refutation of an argument for intolerance. The fact that “natural” and “unnatural” behaviors don’t really mean anything is the point, but it’s the anti-gay side that tries to claim it does. ---
**Author:** ![sundog66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@sundog66](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sundog66)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/14 "2010-11-27T05:15:44Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I mostly agree with you. My hesitation is that claims that homosexuality are unnatural are factually incorrect, and I think it’s okay to correct someone on the facts. That correction can then be followed up by philosophical points similar to the ones you’re making, namely, that who gives a shit if it’s natural? Very well put; I mostly agree with you, too. For me, the hesitation is in being so blasé about ascribing the property “natural” to any complex behavior and then calling that ascription factual, without laying bare all the assumptions about what is meant by “natural”. But that would be a whole 'nother debate. ---
**Author:** ![sundog66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@sundog66](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sundog66)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/15 "2010-11-27T05:22:30Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You are either misstating or misunderstanding the reason for pointing out homosexual behavior in animals. The argument is not “Animals do it, so therefore it’s ok.” The point is made merely to counter the stupidity of people saying it should _not_ be tolerated because it’s “unnatural.” It’s a _counter_ to a bad argument _against_ homosexuality. It’s not an argument _for_ anything. It’s a factual refutation of an argument for intolerance. > > The fact that “natural” and “unnatural” behaviors don’t really mean anything is the point, but it’s the anti-gay side that tries to claim it does. If you’ll indulge me in a somewhat convoluted analogy: the best way to combat the argument “2 plus 2 equals 5, therefore you owe me a million dollars” is NOT “you’re wrong! 2 plus 2 equals 4!” but rather “the sum of 2 and 2 is irrelevant in computing my debt to you” (with perhaps a strongly downplayed addendum — downplayed because it is absolutely irrelevant — “and besides, 2 plus 2 doesn’t equal 5 anyway”). Similarly, I contend that the right way to combat the argument “animals don’t do it, therefore it’s bad” is NOT “but animals do do it!” but rather “animal behavior is irrelevant in adjudicating the acceptability of human behavior (and besides, blah blah blah…)” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/16 "2010-11-27T05:23:15Z")
That’s the opposite of what’s being done, though. The whole point is to call bullshit on the appeal to the “unnatural” made by homophobes. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/17 "2010-11-27T05:26:04Z")
> [@sundog66](#): > > Very well put; I mostly agree with you, too. For me, the hesitation is in being so blasé about ascribing the property “natural” to any complex behavior and then calling that ascription factual, without laying bare all the assumptions about what is meant by “natural”. But that would be a whole 'nother debate. Definitely: as I said, “natural” isn’t a useful term in such arguments. On the rare occasions when someone mentions how unnatural gay sex is, I point at their clothes, or mention that they’re posting on a computer, or bring up duckrape, or otherwise mock the very idea that natural=okay. But given the definition they’re using for natural (that is, “done by other organisms and not because of human interference,”) they’re making a specific factual error. ---
**Author:** ![sundog66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@sundog66](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sundog66)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/18 "2010-11-27T05:29:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s the opposite of what’s being done, though. The whole point is to call bullshit on the appeal to the “unnatural” made by homophobes. If “calling bullshit on the appeal to the natural” is doing what I’m doing, i.e., arguing that naturalness is irrelevant, then I’m all for it. What I’m objecting to is the practice I’ve observed of playing in to the argument by saying, “homosexuality is found in nature, therefore it’s okay”. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/19 "2010-11-27T05:32:47Z")
> [@sundog66](#): > > If you’ll indulge me in a somewhat convoluted analogy: the best way to combat the argument “2 plus 2 equals 5, therefore you owe me a million dollars” is NOT “you’re wrong! 2 plus 2 equals 4!” but rather “the sum of 2 and 2 is irrelevant in computing my debt to you” (with perhaps a strongly downplayed addendum — downplayed because it is absolutely irrelevant — “and besides, 2 plus 2 doesn’t equal 5 anyway”). > > Similarly, I contend that the right way to combat the argument “animals don’t do it, therefore it’s bad” is NOT “but animals do do it!” but rather “animal behavior is irrelevant in adjudicating the acceptability of human behavior (and besides, blah blah blah…)” If _they_ think that “animals don’t do it” is a strong argument, then pointing out the factual error should be sufficient to refute them. Why bother going any further than refuting what they themselves believe is meaningful? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048/20 "2010-11-27T05:35:45Z")
> [@sundog66](#): > > If “calling bullshit on the appeal to the natural” is doing what I’m doing, i.e., arguing that naturalness is irrelevant, then I’m all for it. That’s just it, though. It’s the homophobes who are making the appeal to the “natural.” Pointing out they are factually wrong is a _refutation_ of that appeal. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-non-validity-of-arguments-from-nature/562048.md?page=2)