Understanding Green: Appeal to Nature
I have noticed in my time here that people struggle to comprehend Green philosophy. It’s not surprising, Reddit is a majority Western platform and Western philosophy is notoriously lacking in Green.
I think we would all benefit from taking a closer look at Green’s beliefs and values. To that end, I am beginning a series of posts dispelling common misconceptions about Green.
A great deal of confusion about Green can be attributed to misleading use of language. Words have ambiguous or even contradictory meanings, and they can be used deceitfully. For this first post we will discuss one of the most common examples of this, the appeal to nature fallacy.
The premise of an appeal to nature is “what is natural is good.” What could be more Green than that? As it turns out, this rhetorical device is often used by non-Green peoples. Let’s discuss a few reasons why:
Morality
An appeal to nature is a moral argument, morality being a code of conduct that denotes right and/or wrong behavior within a social system. While Green often bases its communities on nature, it is not a color that relies on morality to guide its actions, relying instead on instinct. A person operating within a moral framework rather than behaving instinctively is a cue to look closer and investigate whether the person is actually behaving in a Green manner.
Does this person seek to impose their opinion on others? Green is the least confrontational color, preferring to live and let live. If they are trying to control others they may not be Green.
Is this person “cherry picking”? A Green individual values all aspects of nature. The lion is not more virtuous than the hyena, or the falcon more noble than the crow. All life has an equal place in the ecosystem. If this person is using some aspects of nature as exemplars while looking down on others, they may not be Green.
Bias
Which brings us to the topic of bias. To be Green a person must be able to set aside their preconceived notions of right and wrong. They must be able to look upon nature and accept it as it is. Not use it to validate their preexisting beliefs.
They must also have the humility to look at the world holistically and accept that they are a minuscule part of it. Not just as an individual, but humanity as a whole. An anthropocentrist cannot authentically appeal to nature because their values are based on human-centric ideologies rather than observations of the natural world.
Deception
Natural is a word with good connotations, evoking normality, purity and comfort. The guise of naturalism is extremely appealing, and profitable.
To frame something as natural is to give it power. A food that is branded as natural is more marketable. A natural remedy will be perceived as safer regardless of its efficacy. And if you can pass your policies off as natural? That will boost their popularity.
The inverse is also true. If you can convince the public that a belief, product or activity that you dislike is unnatural you can damage it.
The aesthetics of naturalism are so fashionable that many people trick themselves into believing it is a part of their values. And those that do not value naturalism often fraudulently adopt it to improve their social standing. In such an environment it is imperative to judge people by their deeds rather than their words. Do they actually act in accordance with their stated values, or are they just making a fool of themself or others?
Now I turn the discussion to you. What are your favorite examples of non-Green people, characters or groups that have appropriated Green aesthetics? What are some examples you often see mistaken for Green, here or elsewhere? And, how many of you have caught yourselves falling for this fallacy?