**How do we define ‘unnatural’?** • Nature is [important to humans](http://www.team4nature.co.uk/blog/campaigns/31-why-is-nature-so-important-to-human-beings). Partly due to our dependence on nature, in most societies, cultures, and languages the ‘natural’ has accrued positive connotations, whilst ‘unnatural’ has accrued negative. Because this is so ingrained in our ways of thinking, many people argue that certain acts are wrong primarily because they are deemed ‘unnatural’, whilst others are right because they are ‘natural’. In philosophy, this line of thought is called [‘appeal to nature’](https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-nature-fallacy/) and often appears in discussions about medicine, chemicals, and food. • Many philosophers have criticised arguments that rely on this structure: they name this [‘naturalistic fallacy’](https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-naturalistic-fallacy/). The philosopher [G. E. Moore](https://theought.com/2017/08/07/g-e-moore-and-the-naturalistic-fallacy/) termed the phrase in the early 20th Century, arguing that what is good cannot be defined or reduced to natural properties. • This statement is also built upon a preconception of what is natural and what is not, which is arguably subjective. Most understand ‘unnatural’ to mean things or actions that do not independently occur in nature, and that must be created by man. People who believe that we do not have free will may argue that no human act is unnatural, as all of [our actions are predetermined](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwFischer2.html). • Many ‘unnatural’ acts, such as IVF and vaccinations, are widely regarded as beneficial to society. Therefore, many do not believe that these are unethical.