Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!rodan.acs.syr.edu!lynx.cat.syr.edu!anderson
From: anderson@lynx.cat.syr.edu (Joseph Anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <1990Dec25.031951.29377@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Date: 25 Dec 90 08:19:50 GMT
References: <1990Dec3.183326.979@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> <1990Dec4.055239.14558@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> <15421@cs.utexas.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Syracuse University
Lines: 99

In article <15421@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>-----
>This discussion of what is natural to humans is cross-posted to
>sci.bio, implying that it concerns what is natural in a
>scientific sense, not just in someone's particular religious or
>ethical ontology.  Because religions and various ethical systems
>phrase their normative stances in terms of human nature, the
>natural is often confused with the desirable, from some
>viewpoint. 
>
	from: anderson@cat.syr.edu

		You guys have a lot of endurance: For beating dead horses.
		"Has anyone ever set down and proved what is and what isn't
		natural to humans?" The extent of cultural variations to 
		these "axioms".

		...and more how analgous is analyzing the behaviour of other
		species to the behaviour of the human species?

		Did you check out the articles re: Women studing primates
		vs. men and the prejudices that wern't introduced (who knows
		which ones were) how accurate is the crossover?  Does an
		Orangatan pull a gun on ya if you don't give him the correct
		change? or Dissertate ( a new word) as to monogamy or wheter
		women should be studying them or men?)
		I don't understand why you're arguing imponderables with
		non-established basis criteria.
			Once again....
				How much of extra species behaviour is analogous			to human behaviour and show me the "RationAlIzATions"
				What is your basis of "normal" human behaviour?
				
		anderson@cat.syr.edu



>In article <1990Dec4.055239.14558@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> jpalmer@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (John D. Palmer) writes:
>> The point is, something being 'natural' does not mean that 
>> it ALWAYS happens. . . I am 'naturally' right handed, yet I can
>> change to being left handed with a great deal of work and trouble.
>
>The question of what is natural to *humans* is one about all of
>us as a group, rather than any one of us as as an individual.
>Almost all humans develop a prefered handedness.  Most prefer the
>right hand.  Some prefer the left hand.  Despite such preference,
>humans can learn motor skills on either side; permitting
>individual desire, parental training, or cultural imperative to
>influence one's handedness.  Some claim that innate handedness
>shows through any such training, though the evidence for this is
>more subtle. 
>
>> ... I recall spending some time visiting in a sexual dependency
>> clinic and the people there sure weren't happy. . . it made me 
>> wonder about sexuality and whether or not monogamy made one
>> healthier. 
>> Well, I didn't get an answer, but it does seem that IF humans are
>> 'naturally' monogamous, it would seem that these people had paid the 
>> price for going against their nature. . .
>
>Those are very appropriate scare quotes.  Whether a behavior is
>the healthiest way to live, or whether it carries a psychological
>price, has very little to do with whether it is natural.  Such
>assumptions reflect the naturalistic fallacy (good=natural) that
>is so common in these discussions.  To name an easy
>counterexample, war is consistent with human nature.  There are
>grave doubts that this is the least costly, 'healthiest', or best
>way to resolve the conflicts that have caused it.
>
>> ie I don't think that humans are not naturally monogamous because 
>> they aren't monogamous. . .
>
>The presence of polygamous cultures is proof that polygamy is
>consistent with human nature.  The presence of monogamous
>cultures is proof that monogamy is consistent with human nature.
>Attempts to show that one of these is "more natural" than the
>other in some deeper and universal sense reflects the desire to
>read one's ethics into nature, or conversely, to usurp the word
>"natural" to give weight to one's ethical arguments.  (Are they
>so weak they cannot stand without such trickery?)
>
>> ... I think that one would have to find a large incidence of
>> happy polygamy to prove that they aren't
>
>I know of no evidence that those in polygamous cultures are in
>general less happy than those in monogamous cultures.  Even if
>there is such evidence, it would NOT show that monogamy is
>natural.  "Natural" does NOT mean "that which promotes the
>happiest or best culture".  (Indeed, there is no reason to think
>that nature works toward optimal happiness for individuals or
>cultures.  In both cases, the qualities that are naturally
>propagated are those that are encoded in memes or genes that are
>successful at reproducing themselves in a given environment.
>Individuals who are suicidal depressives may be less likely than
>others to successfully reproduce, but those who are chronically
>dissatisfied or who behave in ways that lead to conflict may well
>do better at propagating their genes than those who are placidly
>happy.)
>
>Russell