Natural.
In my class today we had a discussion about the meaning of natural with regards to society and a sovereign and whatnot, in the context of Hobbes. Hobbes says we act according to natural laws and instincts, one of which being the right to protect ourselves. So thus survival or attempting survival must be natural in, or even out of this particular context. Someone in my class trying to bring up a so called point saying that buildings, medicine and so on should be considered unnatural, but I am not so sure I agree. Shelter is necessary for survival, as shows even a bird by building a nest or a beaver by a dam, whatever. The compounds used may not be the natural(and I mean it right here saying uninfluenced by outsiders) state, but the uses are. Medicinal chemicals and such may be created by unnatural means but are intended for natural causes that we eliminate to ensure survival so that makes them natural in that sense. Society is one of those things as well that falls under useful tools for survival, we give our rights and our lives to rulers and in return they "ensure" our safety by giving us "protection," so that makes society necessary for survival and a sovereign leader or representatives of such equally so. I mean you can look at animals even, they have societies for their own protections, like wild packs of dogs will (I don't really want to use this word)"elect" an elite to lead them, elephants will have herds, ants have colonies, lions a pride, the list keeps going. There is a question, a legitimate problem if you will with Hobbes if you read the "Leviathan" of how the will of the sovereign could counteract your natural rights, and that is if you were condemned to death for the better of society would it be acceptable to cause struggle or disturbance. What the sovereign does is for your protection and the protection of others, but not struggling would go against your natural desire to survive....I really am not sure, sometimes I want to kick philosophy in its ugly face.