>Morality isn't natural >Ideology isn't natural

I, for one, believe in the natural law of the land.
If a nigger steals a head of corn out of your farm over night whilst yer sleepin', shoot 'em!

File: 1449769761317.png (273KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 450x450px

>>8582869
>nature meme

Pretty sure this has been laughed out of philosophy for the past 70 years or so.

>>8582879
>>8582881
Yes, but the spooky thing is to say that Trees etc. are nature and a skycraper is not. If you are de-spooked you will disregard the term Nature as an arbitrary term and accept that everything can be called natural

>>8582869
>the third series of Bored to Death was disappointing and there will never be another redeeming insallment

>>8582890
A skyscraper won't grow on its own, and I think this is the line which people usually draw

>>8584157
What about bird's nests
Termite hills
Cocoons
Spitbug homes
Weaver ants and their nests
Bee hives

>>8582890
Isn't everything an arbitrary term?
Isn't all of literature just a bunch of old books full of arbitrary terms?

I mean, if we're gonna go that route

File: image.jpg (393KB, 759x623px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 759x623px

>>8582890
Is this natural?

>>8584167
All done without the aid of tools and in most of those examples the primary material is some form of excrement

>>8584207
No, white people are an abomination

>>8584218
So if I built a skyscraper it wouldn't be natural

But if I built the same thing out of leaves and puke chunks and did it with my hands it wouldldldldldldldldldldldldldldldldldldldldldldldldldldldld::

>>8582869
Is the premise here that something being unnatural means it's bad? I question that, and I also question the idea of labeling things as natural or unnatural.

People tend to create a dichotomy due to the fact that nature tends to operate solely on instinct whereas society operates on consciousness to a substantial extent.

Personally, I think the Taoists had it right. Nothing in nature has a name. It is only man that gives things names with his consciousness (i.e., his language).

>I kill a bird
>you're a fucking monster why do you kill that poor bird?

>cat kilsl a bird
>it's their nature, we shouldn't interfere in it

Who cares who kills the bird. He'll be dead anyways. I doubt he'd be happy because he died to a "nature's act". I really hate this logic of "nature is wise and perfect". It's not. It tries to be practical, but it has a lot of shit which can be made better.

File: 0022e99c84a7664746c2209f2cd61ecf.jpg (98KB, 450x449px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 450x449px

>Human creations aren't Nature
Why the capital? You betray yourself, you seem to be personifying nature. Unless you have a good definition of what nature is you are just wasting your time worrying if skyscrapers are nature or not, to say nothing of something far less tangible like morality.

>>8584261
Nature doesn't "try to be" anything, first of all. Second of all, will you eat the bird that you kill?

>>8584261
Well when they say it is the cat's nature they mean it is it's instinct. The instinct that hasn't been bred out of it through domestication. Whereas humans being more intelligent and having a more developed morality should be above that kind of thing. Cats do often eat part of the things they kill, most humans wouldn't.

>>8584283
Ironically, breeding and conditioning people to behave in certain ways is unnatural and leads to unnatural behavior.

File: image.gif (95KB, 624x300px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 624x300px

>>8584261
t. bird killer

Go rationalize your crimes elsewhere.

File: 1474024133654.png (84KB, 191x274px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 191x274px

>people who think "natural law" means "occurs in nature"

You're all retards.

You're all retards.

>>8584222
>>8584207
This, unnatural creatures of Yakub

>>8584525
t. bighead

>>8582869
The only unnatural things would be the supernatural and I don't believe exists

File: sartre.png (72KB, 776x426px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 776x426px

>>8582869
>What do you say to people like this?
Easy.

>>8584241
we should really pay more attention to taoism pretty good philosophy field

>>8582869
Nature is socially defined.

>>8582869
the Being of being of not itself a being

>>8582869

People tend to define nature colloquially as that which wasn't created by humans. Though, technically humans are a part of nature as well.

>>8584227
I mean you can always try it, but you wouldn't be able to do it.

>>8582869
>Morality isn't natural
its a concept dumb-dumb
Its twisted and stretched throughout different cultures
When you think of the natural "goodness" of mankind you're thinking of conscious(ness)
We are naturally inclined to help each other out or to connect. You add the layer of morals on top of that and now we have rules that dictate how we use our conscious

File: gU2wU4y.gif (690KB, 484x280px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 484x280px

>>8582869
OMAEWADAREDA ORE NO NAKA NO ORE

the word 'nature' was invented by humans and is therefore unnatural
wrap your tiny brains around that, humans

File: 491.jpg (40KB, 377x378px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 377x378px

>X is just a social construct!

How am I supposed to counter this bullshit?

>>8585701
By noting that equality, human rights and justice are also social constructs.

>>8585701

1) Assuming it's a social construct, how does that disprove my position/theory/idea. (Most people that use this argument will probably not be able to articulate a good answer)

2) Can you demonstrate that it's a social construct?

3) Aren't social constructs ultimately just natural constructs? (determinism etc)

4) Take the position that in today's world social constructs have more meaning/influence than natural ones.

>>8585705

Which might serve you well, until we point out that human rights and justice are completely ad-hoc and essentially Christian concepts that derive from slave morality.

>>8585709

1) The whole point is that your position/theory/idea isn't 'proven' in the first place. Take Rousseau, for example, with his constant appeals to 'Human Nature' and 'General Will' - these are nothing more than Signifiers without a Signified (alongside 'God'/etc), invoked to give his arguments authority precisely due to the vague and ill-defined nature of what is invoked. Social constructs are essentially an appeal to mystery, and thus faith/authority.

2) Again, the burden of proof is on you guys. If something is indeed a social construct, then it can be opposed on the grounds of an argument from authority.

3) No.

4) Meaning and influence by no means signify the presence of any truth or objectivity.

>>8584167
You're right, none of those things are natural.

>>8585701
>It's true that X is a social construct, but simply pointing that out is not an argument against/for X.

>>8582869
They're actually right (not about the cities and buildings part though, many animals build houses and cities all the time) but intentions, actions and their consequences are also natural. Appeal to grasses and trees holds no water therefore.