I think when appealing to nature is being used as argument, it has to be backed up by consequentialist principle, that there should not be any harm inflicted to anyone.
To give examples, one could say homosexuality is natural, but as long as both parties consent, it should not be an issue. However, in the case of paedophilia despite being natural, the child is getting hurt. A Jewish Roman historian noted that children in a pederastic relationship clearly don’t like it.
The nature argument is used most prominently by conservatives and religious people to say homosexuality is bad (though I know scientifically it exists in animals too).
The nature argument is used precisely by the people who don’t use the harm principle and instead brute force assert divine mysticism (christians, muslims mostly).
Can you send the source for that historian thing, I’d be interested.
I think when appealing to nature is being used as argument, it has to be backed up by consequentialist principle, that there should not be any harm inflicted to anyone.
To give examples, one could say homosexuality is natural, but as long as both parties consent, it should not be an issue. However, in the case of paedophilia despite being natural, the child is getting hurt. A Jewish Roman historian noted that children in a pederastic relationship clearly don’t like it.
The nature argument is used most prominently by conservatives and religious people to say homosexuality is bad (though I know scientifically it exists in animals too).
The nature argument is used precisely by the people who don’t use the harm principle and instead brute force assert divine mysticism (christians, muslims mostly).
Can you send the source for that historian thing, I’d be interested.