Why is argument from nature considered a fallacy?

Our digestive systems differ. Stop being retarded.

>>Tells e-"philosophers" to explain one of their go-to deflections
>>They can't do it cause they've never even thought about it.
Then why not spend time among your enlightened friends if we're so much below you? Surely you will come to a satisfying conclusion after calling each other pseudointellectuals for two hours.

but they're animals. animals are natural so it's ok to eat shit xD

I didn't come here expecting this low of a level of person to begin with. I actually want to know what's so convincing of a counter-argument to nature that it's been codified into the nü-new atheist list of prohibited values.
If eating shit does not benefit your survival, it's not in your interest to do it.

That's something outside the argument from nature.

Aaaaan you just demonstrated a lower IQ. Maybe 70?

If you think anything I said is apart from nature it is due to your misunderstanding of nature. No one will heed your insults to my intelligence as long as they're in the style of a sassy 11 year old girl (except anime pedophiles maybe).

How is not eating shit natural?
Natural creatures do it and they posses the """"value of nature"""""
Sure some animals may die from digesting shit but that benefits the species because the dead animal doesn't get to spread its stupid genes.

In other words: Eat shit and die, dumbass.

Aaaaaand you just used another type of argument. Look how easy is to verify this doubt?

Aaaand you just demonstrated an EVEN lower IQ! Is it 60? 50?

Human nature is distinct from the natures of other animals. To be good with nature as a value is to act in a way that ensures the survival of yourself and your descendants. Eating shit is wrong coming from this starting point.
I'll ad hominem you all day long if you want me to.

So you mean that "eating shit is natural therefore good" is a fallacy?

Now you cannot even remmember your initial doubt.
>Do I really have to justify nature as a value every time
Aaaaaand you just demonstrated an even lower IQ than the commom racist white person! 30?

>I can't find a counterargument
>my feelings tell me they're wrong though
You sound retarded.

>Why is argument from nature considered a fallacy?

It's not.

For animals.

It's not wrong because it appeals to nature. It's wrong because it's false equivalence.
What happens when it reaches 0? Is that when you finally let yourself cum?
There's more emotion in the whining reactions to my use of pathos than in anything I said.
Hwut?

Whole concept of civilisation is humans distancing from nature. Do you think human civilization is bad, because it is unnatural?

>something basic like "strength is better than weakness"
It's so vague it doesn't mean anything. It could be empty motivational quote or a justification for theft.

>0
lol
Aaaand you just demonstrated more ignorance about something so trivial. You are the stupidest user on this board. More stupid than the racists from pol!

>because it's false equivalence
Explain how

Because people, along with tremendous technological progress, have found better ways to deal with the world and survive in it.

Take the natural human instinct to choose a lesser reward now instead of a significantly bigger reward after a period of time.
Sometimes to get better results at something or to survive we have to use our willpower and go against our instincts - against nature.

Raping women when you're horny is also natural - they're physically weaker and you have a primal urge to spread your genes. But building a family on love and trust gives much better chances of survival for your offspring, happier life for you and your woman, so a better life for the larger group of people you belong to as well.

It's natural to feel the fight or flight response. But in this day and age it hinders a lot of everyday situations.
For example, if you want to give a speech or make a presentation or perform in any other way - you start feeling as if there's a physical threat like a dangerous animal trying to get you - when in reality it's very irrational. Nature is just getting in the way in this case.

Some things are better natural, some things are not.

Op here. I have to drive home. I will respond in about 15 minutes.

Because lots of things are natural but not necesarily a good thing. Rape is natural, all animals do it, but it's not exactly good for human society to accept that.

Hume's law. Just because something tends to BE a certain way in nature does not mean that it OUGHT to be like that.

Depends on what you mean by civilization, because there are different kinds of civilizations. I will say that insofar as parts of a civilization exist to make things easier that once would have culled the unfit from the gene pool, there is a negative element to that aspect of civilization. I think civilization is the natural product of ambition and desire to safeguard one's own people as well though, so it's definitely not cut and dry. Certain civilizations like the Vikings, Romans, expansionist Muslims, and samurai-era Japanese seemed to have struck a balance between "civilized" decadence and degeneracy and chaos.

Theft is okay if it's of your enemy. The rules within a group must be different from the rules outside the group and it's allies.
I am a racist from /pol/. Does that mean I'm smarter or more stupider now?
Humans aren't dogs. Humans don't naturally eat shit. Shit kills the man, so we've developed a disgust reflex when we're near shit. Your argument only makes sense if you think that I think all species are equal.
This is the best reply.

>Because people, along with tremendous technological progress, have found better ways to deal with the world and survive in it.

I don't argue against technology. Even chimpanzees use tools, and I'm typing this on a computer, so it would be hypocritical if I was. Making technology to make our lives better is the natural result of our advancement as collectives. There are downsides to technology when they result in the satiation of our natural desires at the expense of the ability to safeguard our group and ourselves though. Free access to tens (hundreds) of thousands of unique porn videos online, for example, retards a man's desire to find a woman to mate with, which will result in fewer numbers for the group - weakness.
(cont. comment getting too long)

>Raping women when you're horny is also natural - they're physically weaker and you have a primal urge to spread your genes. But building a family on love and trust gives much better chances of survival for your offspring, happier life for you and your woman, so a better life for the larger group of people you belong to as well.

I'm not advocating a lack of self-control when I speak of valuing nature. If a group is intelligent enough to be monogamous and enforce against rape, it will naturally remove those who can't control their urges to that extent, and will advance evolution in a way that it's members will have more self-control. You're arguing from nature when you talk about survival of the offspring and harmony with the community and your woman. I agree with that completely.

As far as rape goes, I think it's a good morale boost in a war situation. Rape of foreign women should not be punished. It is the acceptable outlet for that male desire. That was basically how it was for hundreds of years, and women even evolved to get wet when they're being raped, and often orgasm, because of this very phenomenon and how common it was for women from another tribe to be taken as (sex) slaves. This is offensive to the modern view of things, but it's objectively real, and that's the heart of why I think nature is valid as a source of virtue and value.

Public speaking seems like a weird thing to bring up when discussing all of this primordial stuff, but okay. I don't know why people are so afraid of public speaking, but it probably has to do with social alienation or unconfidence on the part of the speaker. I think this is probably more related to cultural neurosis than genes, but it's really not anything I've thought too much about because it doesn't affect me (I don't have any reason to give a public speech.)

Animals argue from nature. It's all they have. So for them, it's not a fallacy.

For human beings to think they're animals, and thus argue from nature, is a fallacy.

>Depends on what you mean by civilization
Law, agriculture, medicine, state, art, literature, science, religion, architecture, metallurgy... All against nature.

>I will say that insofar as parts of a civilization exist to make things easier that once would have culled the unfit from the gene pool,
Those "unfit" are in vast majority of cases "unfit" because of medical issues. This "unfitness" often won't stop them from being a net contribution to humanity.

>Certain civilizations like
>the Vikings
Are you an Adolescent American or something? Vikings were not a civilization.

>Romans
They were clearly on the "le degenerate civilised sissies" side.

>expansionist Muslims
Turks, Arabs, Persians, Timurids? "Expansionist Muslims" is, again, something that sounds like it came out of American mouth.

>and samurai-era Japanese
Crushed by modernist Japs.

I happen to be an expert on this subject. Its because "Nature" as abstraction is never Nature. Nature is just "Whatever happens to exist", it is the universe.

Nature in the minds of the moralists, as some kind of cosmic world-order with implicit values and ideals, does not exist. Every philosopher who invokes Nature cuts out parts he doesn't like and says they aren't really nature, they're unnatural or deformed. Nature is always "nature according to the stoa".

In metaethical terms, Nature can only give you a vast web of casual relationships. It tells you what a given action will likely result in, giving you that kind of objective metric to organize your behavior by, this is what the ancients called "kamma" or 'karma' in its original sense.

But it cannot tell you what ends or goals to seek, it cannot provide you with actions. If you desire a particular thing [beauty, strength, knowledge, etc], then "Nature" can give you a most efficient means for doing so, a method that is objectively superior through logic of simple efficiency. But it cannot tell you to seek or desire, even if you take recourse to psychology and say "We have these instincts", one must question why we should follow these instincts at all. And if your argument THEN, is that we have no choice but to follow those instincts, then you're no longer making a moral argument at all, you're describing a supposed psychology.

>it will naturally remove those who can't control their urges to that extent, and will advance evolution
We've been eliminating thiefs, beggars and whores for centuries and yet they are still here. That's not how evolution works.

>I think it's a good morale boost in a war situation.
It weakens discipline.
> Rape of foreign women should not be punished
It wasn't punished until hearts&minds of occupied people became relevant.

I suppose you could consider nature to be virtuous or good, but it would still be up to you to prove it is so and no one has to give a shit about your argument if they disagree.

I apologize for this, since the counter-posts are actually getting good and well-intentioned, but I have to go. If this thread's still up when I'm back, I'll respond so long as there isn't a total flood of arguments.
Genuine thanks to anyone being honest on 4chang and not acting like a faggot.

If you can't think of any justification for the statement "strength is better than weakness" other than "it's natural" you should probably kill yourself.

So you are a racist? Opinion discarded!

Go increase your IQ reading something!

the problem is that nature does not exist

'nature' is just 'a way to say' same as 'god' or 'humanity', its a set of conceptions

nature isnt real

this is important, because it has significant baring on how you see and understand things

what youre talking about is a sort of cognitive dissonance

people have been conditioned for several generations now to percieve every obious statement or affirmation of differences in potential, any affirmation of achievement or performance, especialy when there is a distribution involved, practicaly anything life affirming that isnt symultaneously fun and plesant and nonproblematic, or, that affirms that there is in being capable, as, lets say... impolite, incorrect, primitive etc...

now, this is the tricky part
its not that some new multiculty logic of equality and tollerance or whatever you guys call the neo-marxist whatever that is the cause of this
no
its actualy the other way around, sarcasm, cinicism, resentment and self-hatred, neurotic negation of all value and leveling everithing down to absurdity in a long elaborate lamentation, have long before become the basics of western mentality

all the rest is just the result, or affirmation, of same, but that stuff is there i mean its there since the simpsons started, i mean its there practicaly since after WW1

realy it was how the culture reacted against the apsurdity that systematicaly manifetsed as what we know now as 'western civilization', especialy after all the unimaginable shit of two consecutive world wars, the thing is the system integrated the criticism, integrated the proposed 'opposition'

thats what the SJWs are, they are a manifetstation of the system once it just processed the criticism

everything is fine, no need for class struggle or redistribution, we can have complete class cooperation, you see, we just need 'gender equality' and 'tollerance' and 'diversity'

far from being 'liberal' or 'left' they are a manifestation of corporate fascism

Well the whole concept of 'natural' is tricky then. I think that to a certain extent there are very important rules to follow which come from the way we work as a life form in order to live a fulfilling existence.
But I don't see how harming others and thus endangering your or your children's lives is more natural than living in peace and harmony not only with your group, but other groups.

It's natural to want to remove something that causes you pain. But there are more effective and less effective ways of dealing with that pain.

Do you know one of the main reasons why humanity has progressed so much? Because we've stopped horribly abusing children. A big part of western society has stopped growing into broken, angry, horrible human beings that rape, murder, abuse and torture others. Such actions are very damaging to the psyche. Damaged people aren't good at raising children. And it keeps us from evolving. Just look at any part of the world where there's genital mutilation, beating of children, infanticide, child marriage, sexual abuse and etc. in groups and you'll see dark, violent and bloodthirsty, broken people living in poverty with little technological development. Wars and hatred are a great soil for such people. Take away children from degenerates, raise them in good families and you'll see how their potential unfolds.

I'm against harm. I'm all for defending yourself, of course, but it is not just to harm others apart from self defense even if it is your "enemy" and I believe such conclusions come from nature.

what does 'natural' mean in that case?

skin cancer is perfectly 'natural' so is dhiarrhea and pedofilia and spontaneous abortion, you could kill people with the things you could pick in the forests where i live, and im in fuking europe, mosquitos are also natural and so is autism

its not like calling a thing 'natural' is a solid value judgment or a guarantee of goodnes of any kind

its that none of those things are glitches, theres no mistake, its systematic, its how things work, one of the ways things work is that human males have a tendency to act sexualy agressively, and that some lack self control or fail at it for pathologic reasons of whatever kind, and end up forcing themselves on someone, and experiences, substances, situations and circumstances play into all that, and so that shit happens, same as brain stroke or gang violence, you cant underestimate how fucked up humans realy are

and this is simply so, not as a error, thats how the world is, thats how reality functions, it isnt even 'nature', its just how shit works, down to the subatomic, down to vacuum

it goes up too tho

>ever talking to someone that calls themselves a nihilist
They are the nadir of philosophy. They will always ask why but never put forward an answer of their own.

OP. I'm back (and I honestly fucked around for an hour or two after getting back). Let me know if you're here and you want a reply. I don't feel the need to if you're not going to see it to begin with .

>This is offensive to the modern view of things, but it's objectively real
What is objectively real is that you are a sick fuck not fit for modern society.

The reason that nature can never be used as an argument, is because it has no real justification.

It's in Humanity's nature to live greedily in scarce conditions, for example; if there existed a systematic perpetual scarcity (economic incentive, via: interest, debt, and deficit), then it would be human nature to deplete the Earth's natural resources until there was nothing left. But, given a tribal scenario, where humans take as they give back to the Earth, like we've done for hundreds of thousands of years, then you could also use that as justification for NOT being a greedy little prick.

The strawman in your picture, for example, is a man who thinks he understands the world, that he's somehow right when everyone else is wrong.

Right now, I could say that cuckoldry is actually going to save mankind. Think about it. It's natural for the submissive male to take care of the alpha male's children; they will produce healthier stronger males. Going to the gym or working out is actually counterproductive, because it gives weak men as much priority as naturally strong men. Those insecure weak faggots who go to the gym every day; they're only prolonging the suffering of mankind by breeding. Might certainly does not make right. Strength has no more evolutionary precedence over weakness. The weak mammal outlives the strong dinosaur. The weak descendants of dinosaurs thrive. The weaker ape (us) are the most dominant specie on Earth. The smallest creature has the most number.

Go on.