I think one way of using "natural" that you might think works better is to consider it as a relative term - in particular, something can be natural or unnatural relative to a particular kind of agency. For example, it seems perfectly natural (no pun intended) to say that a beaver building a dam alters the natural course of a river's. Here, "natural" is relative to the beaver's agency: The natural course is the course the river would take without the beaver messing with it. But when we talk about human agency, we consider the beaver's dam to be natural: A human destroying the dam would be changing the natural environment of the river.
This can also make sense of why theists still call things "natural" even though on their view, everything is the result of God's agency and thus unnatural. "Nature" is unnatural with respect to God, but natural with respect to humans.
That's certainly an interesting account! I feel like it captures the idea of the teleology account, but without the metaphysical commitments.
But I still see it falling prey to some of the objections I raise in the post. Firstly, it still seems like nothing would be natural since humans have affected everything, though you could of course make it a spectrum rather than binary, as I suggest. Secondly, it would also mean that a highly advanced spacecraft created by aliens would be as, if not more, natural than a beaver dam, which is sorta counterintuitive.
Most damningly for me (though this might be an idiosyncratic worry), it seems to rely on species as a natural kind, which I think is quite problematic
I don't think it relies on species as a natural kind or necessarily implies anything about alien spacecraft. Sure, if you're just talking about naturalness with respect to humans, an alien spacecraft would count as natural, but that's just one kind of naturalness. There is some kind of naturalness that is relative to the agency of all beings throughout the universe that we call persons, whatever exactly that word means, and that is presumably the type we're thinking of when we consider the alien spacecraft to be unnatural. That's also a type that's not specifically indexed to a particular species.
Of course, the vagueness objection applies here, but I don't think it's too big of a problem for an account of naturalness that says it's relative. It's fine for naturalness qua personal agency to be vague because this account of naturalness says there's no one unique meaning of it anyway.
Fair points, although I suspect that might just make the term trivial. After all, there would then be what's natural for me and some arbitrary guy in Vietnam. Likewise for some butterfly, an arbitrary wolf, and a crab at the bottom of the Mariana trench. You might just bite that bullet, though I guess I just no longer see what the point is in calling it "natural" is at that point--it just seems to be getting at something so far from our ordinary understanding that it no longer deserves the name.
I'm intrigued by this definition or something like it, but "particular kind of agency" requires some unfurling. Do you have any ideas about how to suitably demarcate this unnaturalizing agency?
By "particular kind of agency," I generally meant the agency of a particular being or group, like the beaver's agency, humanity's agency, the agency of all sapient beings, etc. Maybe it would have been better stated as "the agency of a particular kind of being".
I see, but is there something that distinguishes beaver agency from human agency from martian agency, apart from the classification of beings employing it?
Does carving up nature on the basis of agency entail beliefs about free will? It seems like, maybe for a hard determinist, the characterization of human agency as sundering nature would be strange, since human agency is ultimately downstream of influences we would classify as natural.
Knowing what is natural or unnatural is a lot clearer when you believe in God and you read God's manual for life, the bible. The author mentioned homosexuality a couple of times and queried people who label it an unnatural act. As a person who believes in God , the bible, and the instructions within it, I don't have to consider the unnaturalness of this act at all. God, through my Bible tells me it is not a natural act because it falls outside the purpose of Gods creation, that is, that we are either male or female, and that the act of marriage between a male and a female is to satisfy their sexual needs as well as taking part in the continuation of the human species. At the end of the day though, if you don't believe in God, then anything goes. There is no right or wrong, natural or unnatural, male or female ... and so the list goes on
As a Utilitarian naturalist I approve of this post. I have often found some of the same difficulties with how people use the word natural. Big up!
I think one way of using "natural" that you might think works better is to consider it as a relative term - in particular, something can be natural or unnatural relative to a particular kind of agency. For example, it seems perfectly natural (no pun intended) to say that a beaver building a dam alters the natural course of a river's. Here, "natural" is relative to the beaver's agency: The natural course is the course the river would take without the beaver messing with it. But when we talk about human agency, we consider the beaver's dam to be natural: A human destroying the dam would be changing the natural environment of the river.
This can also make sense of why theists still call things "natural" even though on their view, everything is the result of God's agency and thus unnatural. "Nature" is unnatural with respect to God, but natural with respect to humans.
That's certainly an interesting account! I feel like it captures the idea of the teleology account, but without the metaphysical commitments.
But I still see it falling prey to some of the objections I raise in the post. Firstly, it still seems like nothing would be natural since humans have affected everything, though you could of course make it a spectrum rather than binary, as I suggest. Secondly, it would also mean that a highly advanced spacecraft created by aliens would be as, if not more, natural than a beaver dam, which is sorta counterintuitive.
Most damningly for me (though this might be an idiosyncratic worry), it seems to rely on species as a natural kind, which I think is quite problematic
I don't think it relies on species as a natural kind or necessarily implies anything about alien spacecraft. Sure, if you're just talking about naturalness with respect to humans, an alien spacecraft would count as natural, but that's just one kind of naturalness. There is some kind of naturalness that is relative to the agency of all beings throughout the universe that we call persons, whatever exactly that word means, and that is presumably the type we're thinking of when we consider the alien spacecraft to be unnatural. That's also a type that's not specifically indexed to a particular species.
Of course, the vagueness objection applies here, but I don't think it's too big of a problem for an account of naturalness that says it's relative. It's fine for naturalness qua personal agency to be vague because this account of naturalness says there's no one unique meaning of it anyway.
Fair points, although I suspect that might just make the term trivial. After all, there would then be what's natural for me and some arbitrary guy in Vietnam. Likewise for some butterfly, an arbitrary wolf, and a crab at the bottom of the Mariana trench. You might just bite that bullet, though I guess I just no longer see what the point is in calling it "natural" is at that point--it just seems to be getting at something so far from our ordinary understanding that it no longer deserves the name.
I'm intrigued by this definition or something like it, but "particular kind of agency" requires some unfurling. Do you have any ideas about how to suitably demarcate this unnaturalizing agency?
By "particular kind of agency," I generally meant the agency of a particular being or group, like the beaver's agency, humanity's agency, the agency of all sapient beings, etc. Maybe it would have been better stated as "the agency of a particular kind of being".
I see, but is there something that distinguishes beaver agency from human agency from martian agency, apart from the classification of beings employing it?
Does carving up nature on the basis of agency entail beliefs about free will? It seems like, maybe for a hard determinist, the characterization of human agency as sundering nature would be strange, since human agency is ultimately downstream of influences we would classify as natural.
Me when I click on the second link of this article: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/617/883/05e.png
**I will not be held liable for any psychological damage caused by this post**
Knowing what is natural or unnatural is a lot clearer when you believe in God and you read God's manual for life, the bible. The author mentioned homosexuality a couple of times and queried people who label it an unnatural act. As a person who believes in God , the bible, and the instructions within it, I don't have to consider the unnaturalness of this act at all. God, through my Bible tells me it is not a natural act because it falls outside the purpose of Gods creation, that is, that we are either male or female, and that the act of marriage between a male and a female is to satisfy their sexual needs as well as taking part in the continuation of the human species. At the end of the day though, if you don't believe in God, then anything goes. There is no right or wrong, natural or unnatural, male or female ... and so the list goes on