Follow TV Tropes

Following

On naturalistic arguments for philosophical debates

Go To

Gannetwhale Adveho in mihi Lucifer Since: Jul, 2011
Adveho in mihi Lucifer
#1: Sep 18th 2011 at 3:28:09 PM

Note: This sounds really stupid, but the inspiration for this is even more idiotic, so there's no surprise.

I've seen multiple uses of the Natural Law Fallacy (more often than not Insane Troll Logic, but what do you expect), and this got me to think: is diplomacy overated?

Mankind's natural way of dealing with its problems is via annihilation, by destroying what threatens our survival. Diplomacy is an invention of civilasation, and even then more often than not it was only used within the community; outsiders were nearly always fair game until very recently in human history. And even then, diplomacy's effect seems fairly temporary.

So, by the logic (or lack of logic) of the Natural Law Fallacy, isn't abandoning the artificiality of diplomacy and making use of the threat of violence "morally" correct? Consider all communities in existence. All are composed with people just trying to be free and live their lives, but find themselves threatened by people with moral standards. Be them conservative christians, muslim terrorists, Scientology, what have you, diplomacy seems awfully useless against them, and they brutality anyway.

So, isn't perhaps more effective to give in to the threat of violence?

This will obviously be met with He Who Fights Monsters, but the truth is that this concept is equally artificial, and the moral issues with it seem moot when there are legitimate reasons to employ the use of violence. If one's life is threatened, one should have the right to defend it at all costs, after all.

You could also argue that morals or at least justice are evil using this argument given that those are the ones driving the need for physical violence, but that is another story for another thread.

A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#2: Sep 18th 2011 at 3:35:09 PM

I would argue that diplomacy is a natural way of dealing with other people, since a human thought of it. If we can come up with an idea, it's within our capabilities and nature to enact it. There's nothing artificial about it. (Within the limits of our resources, mind you, but diplomacy in and of itself isn't outside of our means, usually.)

edited 18th Sep '11 3:35:39 PM by AceofSpades

Tongpu Since: Jan, 2001
#3: Sep 18th 2011 at 3:35:36 PM

Civilization is just as natural as anything else humans do.

feotakahari Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer from Looking out at the city Since: Sep, 2009
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
#4: Sep 18th 2011 at 3:38:15 PM

If, for any value of "them," we can get "them" to negotiate peacefully with "us" and come to reasonable terms, it's in our best interest to do so and avoid potential loss of life on our side. Problems arise when "they" and "we" can't come to terms.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
Gannetwhale Adveho in mihi Lucifer Since: Jul, 2011
Adveho in mihi Lucifer
#5: Sep 18th 2011 at 3:45:27 PM

The problem is that elitism is a natural function in our brains. Even the most tolerant people at the end of the day still think that they are the enlightened ones

@Diplomacy is natural argument: True, although is in a behaviour that came after sapience, which is not considered "natural" by theologists and people who think in Evolutionary Levels alike.

A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#6: Sep 18th 2011 at 4:01:40 PM

If our actions are because of our sapience/sentience, then it's a natural part of us humans. Anyone who's arguing against that is barking up the wrong tree. We are not animals operating purely on instinct and it is wrong to not consider that when talking about what's natural to us. Even when declaring war on someone we're not operating entirely on instinct; it takes a lot of discussion and planning to carry out a war. This prevents it from being a flight or fight kind of thing.

In any case, diplomacy, or at least not outright annihilating someone, has proven useful enough times for it to be a useful tool. Keeping your side alive is a fairly important thing to people.

joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#7: Sep 19th 2011 at 12:04:33 AM

Funny enough OP I was just about to lauch a page about the use of Nouveau arguments in philosophical debates.

hashtagsarestupid
Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#8: Sep 19th 2011 at 10:45:43 AM

Animals tend to cooperate with their own species. Even the solitary territorial ones rarely kill each other on sight, preferring instead to demarcate boundaries and assert hierarchy. It's far more natural to use "diplomacy" rather than to kill everything that gets in your way. Killing everything is rarely a useful strategy in nature and is selected against. Your premise is deeply flawed.

edited 19th Sep '11 10:46:21 AM by Clarste

Add Post

Total posts: 8
Top