1.5.5.1 Contrary to Nature

Version 1.0 November 2022          (Previous Version)

We cannot infer what we should do from what is.  Is ≠ Ought.  A statement of fact doesn’t lead to a conclusion about what we ought to do.  A subset, or particular instance of this rule is that a statement of fact about what is natural (or unnatural) cannot bring us to a moral or ethical decision.  This is why we use philosophy rather than science to decide what our core values should be.

For example:

●   Some Christians decided that animals, such as dogs and cats, have sex by the male entering the female from her rear, both facing the same way.  Humans by contrast seemed to be the only animals that have sex face to face.  (They only considered heterosexual sex.)  So for some, the so-called missionary position, with the woman on her back and the man on top, was the only legitimate sex position.  Christian missionaries supposedly advocated this position as the only correct one.  Conservative Christians certainly frowned on other interesting positions for sexual intercourse, perhaps because these other positions focused on fun rather than procreation. 

*    Firstly, bonobos occasionally have face to face sex.  Dolphins and whales must also face each other to have sex.  The supposed ‘fact’ is wrong.

*    Secondly, many people have pleasurable sex in other arrangements without causing any harm. 

*    Thirdly, no sexual position is inherently immoral, though some are difficult, painful, uncomfortable or simply not much fun.

●   Many people still think that sex between men, or people of the same sex, is unnatural, and didn’t occur in animals, so consequently homosexuality is morally wrong and should be banned. 

*    Firstly, homosexual sex is common in many animals, from bonobos to rats (in crowded cages).  And homosexuality exists in all societies, including for instance indigenous Americans (before Europeans arrived) and Ancient Greece. 

*    Secondly, those humans who are attracted to others of the same sex do find the sex natural and enjoyable, without causing any harm. 

*    Thirdly, if no harm is being done, there is no reason for homosexuality to be discouraged.

*    Note that we are not here saying that because homosexuality is natural it is therefore good.  We are refuting the claim that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore bad.  We can do this by saying that homosexuality is NOT unnatural.  We could also refute it by saying that even if homosexuality were unnatural, that doesn’t make it bad.  Making telephone calls doesn’t happen among other animals or in previous times but that doesn’t make it bad now.

In summary: