1.5.5.7 Natural: OK or Not OK?

Version 1.0 November 2022          (Previous Version)

Sometimes we say natural behaviour is OK.  Other times we say it is not.  The judgement of what is OK or not is based on or core values, not on the naturalness of the behaviour..

Natural is Often OK

Despite everything above, it is nevertheless reasonable to sometimes suggest that natural behaviour is OK.  This is not hypocritical, because these choices are not moral or ethical judgements.

●   Consider someone who is grieving after a loved one has died.  In some circles, in some societies, publicly displaying our emotions and crying is frowned upon and deemed unseemly conduct.  (In other societies it is expected and even ritualized.)  But we might say to the bereaved: don’t worry, it's natural to cry.  Here we are not asserting that it is morally or ethically correct or required.  We are simply saying that it is OK, that it is a normal human reaction, not shameful, embarrassing or a sign of weakness or lack of self-control, and not something to be discouraged.

●   Many people in less liberal societies are still inclined to suspect that homosexual behaviour is unnatural, and hence bad.  Some of these people wrongly suspect that homosexual behaviour is only evident in modern corrupt societies, and wasn’t present in more natural environments. 

*    But we can point out that homosexual behaviour occurs throughout the animal kingdom, so it is unsurprising that it also occurs between humans. 

*    We can also cite examples of successful societies, such as Ancient Greece and Rome, where in some periods open homosexual relationships, especially between older and younger men, was apparently quit normal.  We can observe that homosexuals were apparently quite accepted in many indigenous societies: a homosexual man may not have become a ‘brave’ to go off and fight battles with other tribes, but the heterosexual ‘braves’ could have felt better that there were some biological males, strong and able to fight, remaining in the village to help protect the women, children and old men.  

*    And we can point to other modern societies where homosexuality is legal and practiced openly, and these societies are thriving, the institution of marriage is unaffected, and children grow up normally.

*    These examples don't prove in any way that homosexuality is morally or ethically good: we cannot infer an ought from an is.  But citing them shows that it is not abnormal or unusual, it is not a disease, there is no need for shame, embarrassment or revulsion: simply it's just OK.

Natural is often NOT OK

Of course some natural behaviour is not OK.  Even if it is supposedly ‘natural’, if it causes unnecessary harm we must discourage it, by working out some intervention that might be effective to change the behaviour.  Alternatively, perhaps we should modify our ethical expectations based on an updated understanding of reality: perhaps in some circumstances we can't expect people to continually overcome their natural instincts.  For instance:

●   Some people (both men and women) will feel that it is natural to be so enraged when they discover their spouse being unfaithful (having sex with someone else) that it is OK to kill them. But murder in a fit of jealousy is a temptation that arises only occasionally (unless there is some serious other problem) and we can and do expect people in this situation to restrain themselves.  Infidelity is not a capital offence: death is not an appropriate ‘punishment’ for that behaviour (nor is a severe mbeating).  Enraged people can still control their behaviour.  Murder in a fit of jealousy happens much less in societies where it is not excused, and the so-called provocation is not an acceptable defence.

●   For another example, smoking marijuana was made illegal in many countries after World War Two, at the instigation of Americans who apparently thought it caused moral depravity.  In fact it doesn’t (though excessive use may cause mental health problems) and it can be quite enjoyable.  From the 1960s onwards more and more young people smoked marijuana, to the point that almost a majority of the population had at least tried it.  One of the justifications for legalising marijuana is that having a law that is disregarded by so many people brings the law into disrepute.  (In addition, the practice does not cause the mooted harms, but it is not totally harmless, so it should be treated as a medical or health issue, not a criminal matter.)  So now, many countries, and individuals, are adjusting their ethical assessment of marijuana, based on this updated understanding of reality, and reducing the penalties for or decriminalising the recreational use of marijuana.

In summary: