I believe it is instructive to consider whether "accordance with nature" may operate validly as a criterion of moral rightness and/or political legitimacy in democratic states. I doubt that it can. The expression would appear to be the remnant of a culture innocent of radical cultural pluralism of the kind we find today and innocent as well of the ideals of the Enlightenment we continue to struggle to promote. I find that claims regarding what is "natural" or "non-natural" in moral and political contexts typically express naught but the values and traditions of particular persons and those of the tribes into which they have been socialized. There doesn't seem to be anything universalizable about appeals to the natural. (Is "survival of the fittest" a universalizabale maxim?) As such, there doesn't appear to be any possibility for impartial and objective judgement on such grounds. Does anyone know of any appeal to nature that can justifiably and legitimately carry the day in cases of moral or political disagreement? Walter O MUN Quoting Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>: > Only tangentially related to the recent threads, but still: > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/suicide/ > > There are references to Kant and others, but this quote struck me: > > When a man's circumstances contain a preponderance of things in accordance > with nature, it is appropriate for him to remain alive; when he possesses or > sees in prospect a majority of the contrary things, it is appropriate for him > to depart from life…. Even for the foolish, who are also miserable, it is > appropriate for them to remain alive if they possess a predominance of those > things which we pronounce to be in accordance with nature. (Cicero, III, > 60–61) > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html