On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, mitchell wilson wrote:
>
> hello, lubna. of course you don't condone killing, and i never intended
> to imply that you do. the reason i asked about it is because to me
> natural means something that all psychologically and physically normal
> people do or want to do, like have sex. in this sense, incest is
> biologically natural, but culturally unnatural. were to nat know who
> your parents are, then you may find yourself attracted to one of them,
> which would be natural. but without laws against killing, people do not
> just naturally want to kill. i know that i have never been turned on t
> okill, like i have been turned on to have sex. but your assertion that
> killing is natural is ambiguous. for you to say that it is natural
> because we are animals and then talk about morality is confusing. when
> i speak of what is natural, it entails what people do in normal
> circumstances, not extraordinary ones. otherwise, as per your
> definition, everything that we do is termed natural. and maybe
> everything that we do is "natural" in the broadest sense. but if so,
> then why discuss what is natural as oppossed to unnatural?
> Consider human culture. i think that the phenomenon of culture is
> natural. for to say that natural is only a biological rhubric is to
> deny culture as legitimately human. in all cultures, killing people is
> an extraordinary thing. as social creatures killing people is
> anti-social. of course people do kill other people, but this is not
> natural in terms of intra-social order. just as bestiality is not
> natural, though some people do it, killing is not natural, though some
> people do it, too.
>
dear mitchell
I think that there is a tension between what we understand to be
(biologically) natural ...
and what society has constructed to be natural. i.o.w's, when i say that
killing might be natural for us as humans I meant that within the context
of us as being animals in the ecological primitive sense. But then again we
are also not animals, because
what distinguishes us from an animal is the fact that we think, feel,
have morals etc. (not that animals can't feel pain etc, but thats not the
issue). We are socialised into being a society that dictates that
killing is bad. And yes it is bad, because it goes against the morals of
human dignity, the value of human life etc, that we hold dear. Any
transgression against these morals is viewed as unnatural and inhuman.
And it is - within our social paradigm.
But the distinction that one needs to make is, is it unnatural
according to a constructed morality, or a sense of morality
that is innate. I think that morality is innate, but what is (socially)
constructed are the rules by which this morality should operate. So in a
sense there is "good" and "bad" in each individual, but my argument is
that those things are based on instinctual drives, such as eros and
thanatos, and how we express them , depends on the way society has
regulated us to express them. Society (in addition to religious doctrine)
says, do not kill. So we don't, which is good, but that doesn't mean that
people have never reached the level of frustration that makes them want
to kill.
You say that the urge to have sex is natural, yes it is. But killing
isn't. I think society has equated natural with good. Sex is good (for
various reasons) and therefore natural.
Floods (for example) are natural, but they are not necessarily good,
because they are destructive and cause deaths. Killing in a similar
fasion is not natural within a socially constructed moral paradigm, but
were we living out in some jungle, the rule would be kill, or be killed.
The only morality that operates here is the morality of survival, and if
your survival depends on it, then killing is natural within this
paradigm.
If one has to give serious thought to whats going on around the world,
people "are" killing each other... in civil wars, genocide, torture,
oppression and so on. Is this an indication of their unnatural
behaviour (which is innate), or them expressing something quite natural
(anger, fear, misunderstanding, hate etc) in an unnatural way.
Foucault would probably have argued for the latter.
Your thoughts ....
lubna
>
> hello, lubna. of course you don't condone killing, and i never intended
> to imply that you do. the reason i asked about it is because to me
> natural means something that all psychologically and physically normal
> people do or want to do, like have sex. in this sense, incest is
> biologically natural, but culturally unnatural. were to nat know who
> your parents are, then you may find yourself attracted to one of them,
> which would be natural. but without laws against killing, people do not
> just naturally want to kill. i know that i have never been turned on t
> okill, like i have been turned on to have sex. but your assertion that
> killing is natural is ambiguous. for you to say that it is natural
> because we are animals and then talk about morality is confusing. when
> i speak of what is natural, it entails what people do in normal
> circumstances, not extraordinary ones. otherwise, as per your
> definition, everything that we do is termed natural. and maybe
> everything that we do is "natural" in the broadest sense. but if so,
> then why discuss what is natural as oppossed to unnatural?
> Consider human culture. i think that the phenomenon of culture is
> natural. for to say that natural is only a biological rhubric is to
> deny culture as legitimately human. in all cultures, killing people is
> an extraordinary thing. as social creatures killing people is
> anti-social. of course people do kill other people, but this is not
> natural in terms of intra-social order. just as bestiality is not
> natural, though some people do it, killing is not natural, though some
> people do it, too.
>
dear mitchell
I think that there is a tension between what we understand to be
(biologically) natural ...
and what society has constructed to be natural. i.o.w's, when i say that
killing might be natural for us as humans I meant that within the context
of us as being animals in the ecological primitive sense. But then again we
are also not animals, because
what distinguishes us from an animal is the fact that we think, feel,
have morals etc. (not that animals can't feel pain etc, but thats not the
issue). We are socialised into being a society that dictates that
killing is bad. And yes it is bad, because it goes against the morals of
human dignity, the value of human life etc, that we hold dear. Any
transgression against these morals is viewed as unnatural and inhuman.
And it is - within our social paradigm.
But the distinction that one needs to make is, is it unnatural
according to a constructed morality, or a sense of morality
that is innate. I think that morality is innate, but what is (socially)
constructed are the rules by which this morality should operate. So in a
sense there is "good" and "bad" in each individual, but my argument is
that those things are based on instinctual drives, such as eros and
thanatos, and how we express them , depends on the way society has
regulated us to express them. Society (in addition to religious doctrine)
says, do not kill. So we don't, which is good, but that doesn't mean that
people have never reached the level of frustration that makes them want
to kill.
You say that the urge to have sex is natural, yes it is. But killing
isn't. I think society has equated natural with good. Sex is good (for
various reasons) and therefore natural.
Floods (for example) are natural, but they are not necessarily good,
because they are destructive and cause deaths. Killing in a similar
fasion is not natural within a socially constructed moral paradigm, but
were we living out in some jungle, the rule would be kill, or be killed.
The only morality that operates here is the morality of survival, and if
your survival depends on it, then killing is natural within this
paradigm.
If one has to give serious thought to whats going on around the world,
people "are" killing each other... in civil wars, genocide, torture,
oppression and so on. Is this an indication of their unnatural
behaviour (which is innate), or them expressing something quite natural
(anger, fear, misunderstanding, hate etc) in an unnatural way.
Foucault would probably have argued for the latter.
Your thoughts ....
lubna