'sin against nature'

What the heck does that even mean? What's nature? How does it dictate what should happen? Why is it that most people who argue against certain things by calling them 'unnatural' are just fine with other unnatural things (like chemotherapy)?

Can someone help me understand this?

Could be a reference to the ethical concept of natural law, could just be alarmist appeal to nature (which is a fallacy).

Since nature encompasses all that exists and occurs, "sin against nature" is a horseshit shibboleth.

Like activist judge, it's just a way to argue hyperbole.

My sig actually shows my opinion on this...

I have asked this question. It seems to be that nature means whatever the hell people want it to mean.

In a vague sense, a sin against some higher power I suppose? Beyond that, it's like "Think of the children", just meant to point out something is negative without ever really saying why.

If they're talking about homosexuality it's funny because it happens in the animal kingdom too.

I read that nature in this phrase doesn't mean nature as in Mother Nature or the natural world, but against one's own nature.

Who told you that?

Are we not a part of the natural world, in any case?

@MRDA I read it in a book once, but it was discussing St. Paul's usage of the term.

Well, yes, but that definition makes little sense.

The term "nature" has a range of meanings, including "the physical world", "inherent purpose" and "wilderness".

A physicalist worldview typically adheres to existential nihilism (meaning that nothing has an inherent purpose), and rejects anthropocentrism (meaning that drawing a fundamental, non-physical distinction between a "wild" termites' nest and an "artificial" skyscraper can only be completely arbitrary). For a person of such a worldview, an appeal to nature on moral grounds must necessarily be fallacious.

It makes perfect sense.

edited 15th Jun '11 4:25:23 PM by MRDA1981

LOL @ people who use it this way with the implication that they know your "nature" better than you do.

No, it's a teleological thing, I think. It assumes that human beings have a particular nature, and that immoral actions are violations of that nature.

Well, in that case LOL @ people who think their insight into human nature is somehow more valid than yours, without giving any reason why you should accept this as the case.

"I have asked this question. It seems to be that nature means whatever the hell people want it to mean." - Aondeug

This. In practice it often seems to be more of an excuse, given the selective reasoning with which it's applied.

Apart from subjects like homosexuality, (which is what I see the "sin against nature" wording in particular often used in the context of) more important subjects like artificial sweeteners seem to be subjected to this as well. People talking about how at least sugar is natural, whereas aspartame isn't. As if "natural" things were NEVER harmful, and as if all our refinement and use of sugar was even all that much more natural than synthesizing substances from amino acids in the first place.

Teleological evolution is fail. An atheistic approximation of "Intelligent Design".

You're thinking of teleonomic evolution. Teleology isn't usually atheistic, and it is commonly used in Intelligent Design arguments.

In the atheist version of teleology, "nature" "decides" the end, instead of "God".

edited 16th Jun '11 2:04:45 AM by MRDA1981

Ah, I see.

I've always thought nature made for a pretty shitty god.

Some people believe the same of God himself, so that's little news.

Since you can't please everyone, I don't think we'll ever create a god that everyone likes and approves of.

edited 16th Jun '11 2:35:55 AM by Medinoc

Well OP it's a bit like hardcore porn. It's difficult to describe, but I know when I see it.

I thought that was easy to describe: It's a graphic depiction of [censored] [censored] [censored] outside of a biology textbook.

It's the not-hardcore part that's hard to define.

"I know it when I see it" doesn't sound like a very good reason to tell people not to do anything.

True enough. But given the brutality of the natural world, it doesn't seem like a great moral guide.