sisyphus68 :
Not sure we should completely abandon the appeal-to-nature. Obviously it is fallacious to claim that “Because something is natural, it must be good, right, or preferable”. Boo! On the other hand, what we should do (morally and practically) is contingent on our human nature. And I think we do have an essential nature (ala Pinker, Bloom), even if that nature can be substantially affected by cultural conditions. We are not endlessly plastic or radically autonomous (as anyone on a diet will tell you). Our morality is ultimately grounded in our naturally evolved empathy… through mechanisms like mirror neurons, oxytocin, and the social emotions of guilt, shame, and pride. Also, I think the anthropologists (being radical leftists at heart) exaggerate the diversity of cultures and resist attempts to see the remarkable consistency in how cultures solve problems. They ignore the fact that there are natural patterns, which often contain wisdom about what’s (politically) possible. And, in ignoring the constraints of nature they make strategic mistakes in advocating for utopian policies. For example, knowing of humans’ ingroup favouritism and natural greed/fear means that advocating for open borders is unrealistic. Ought implies can… and we cannot responsibly advocate for actions that normal humans are incapable of because they contravene the typical human’s nature. We’ve got to work with what we naturally inherited. That’s a kind of appeal-to-nature too.
2025-08-06 12:27:06