By your definition, everything that ever happens is natuaral. That makes the word completely meaningless.
Of course everything that happens in nature is "natural". That's what the word means. The distinction I'm making should be obvious: a behaviour that happens in other, closely-related animals, especially if it happens quite frequently, and especially if it is "beneficial" in natural selection (like lions killing their young, chimps raiding and murdering other groups or dolphins engaging in gang rapes), is by definition "natural" and shouldn't be surprising if it occurs in humans. Non-consensual sex (i.e. rape in the most straightforward sense) is one such behaviour.
That it shouldn't be surprising doesn't mean we should tolerate it or that we can't do anything about it. We're in the quasi-uniquely privileged position that we can reason about our collective behaviour and decide what kind of behaviour we do or don't want to tolerate and what we can do about it.
In other words, because we're capable of sculpting our own human nature, yes, the term "natural" is pretty arbitrary when it comes to human behaviour. But it's entirely appropriate when looking at how other species behave without our interference.
Instead, I think it's better to consider what is "natural" for certain societies and cultures. For example, most people in average, relatively prosperous Western countries (and many Eastern ones) would not "naturally" treat another human being the way the "clients" in the article do. A few sociopaths, but that's a very small percentage of the population.
Why? I think it's pretty simple: it's how people are raised. Children who are raised by loving parents, taught to treat others well, disciplined when they don't, grow up to be adults who wouldn't dream of doing such a thing. But a child who is raised by abusive parents, who witnesses the parents treating others like animals, may grow up and emulate that behavior. If they are taught that it's acceptable to treat other humans like animals and property, then that is what they will do.
Nature vs. nurture is a bit of a false dichotomy. No one grows up in a vacuum. People are shaped by family, society, culture. People tend to emulate what they see. Getting people to change their behavior and values by reasoning with them is very difficult, and impossible with some people.
This is an element that seems sorely lacking in the article: there's no mention of cultural and societal values. She mentions corruption in police and judicial systems, and she calls for unilateral, cross-border action--which would effectively be going to war. She doesn't recognize that you can't fix those problems by going to war, because war doesn't rewrite societal values. (On the other hand, one might point to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and post-WWII as counter-examples, but I think that is a bit different: it was a world war, and the nations were occupied for many years afterwards, and a government had arose which lead the people in evil ways. The cultures weren't necessarily innately evil in their values.)
The reason human trafficking flourishes in these places and police and judicial corruption allow it to continue is that the societal values are corrupt. There's an element of oppressive governments not accurately reflecting the values of the people as well, but still, the government isn't forcing these atrocities to occur.
And to bring it back to where we started: by defining "natural" by what seems natural to animals, you perpetuate the problem. Animals have no concept of right and wrong. Human trafficking and slavery are wrong because they are wrong, because they are evil. You might say that that's circular reasoning, but if we agree on that basic morality, regardless of where it comes from, then it stands.
And therefore, the reason these other places continue to allow it is because of defective moral values in a large percentage of the population.
That isn't a popular thing to say, because it's "judgmental." Well, yes, I do judge that that behavior is abhorrent, and that the people engaging in it and permitting it are acting abhorrently.
And if you want to argue that it's not a result of defective cultural values, you'll have to do better than an "animal nature"-based argument, because that would logically erase cultural differences. And, no, a few outliers in cultures that largely don't have the same problem do not wash away the distinctions. Some cultures do have better moral values than others. (If you disagree with this, you're a moral relativist, and there's no basis for discussing it.)
Yes, it's difficult to change someone's behaviour by talking at them. The only reliable long-term change in behaviour can be brought about during childhood. Just consider religion: sure, there are adult converts, but a fraction of adults converts from the religion they were raised in to another. A person's religion (and religiosity) is mostly an artefact of how and where they grew up.
> Human trafficking and slavery are wrong because they are wrong, because they are evil.
Evil is an intuitive but ultimately ineffective concept. These behaviours are harmful both to the individual and to society at large. They unilaterally violate the personal liberty and human rights of the victim. That's why we consider them evil, not the other way around.
I'm defining natural in terms of animal behaviour because it's the closest we can get in order to draw conclusions about how humans would behave in the absence of ethics and a functioning society. Rape and murder in cold blood are what we see in extreme situations where society has effectively collapsed (e.g. during war, starvation or epidemics).
There's a reason we say people act like animals in these situations: it's because they do. Starvation, anxiety, duress, etc, they all impact a person's capability of rational thought and lead to people following their most basic instincts. Many people still act "human" in these situations, but in general, you're going to see far more horrific behaviour than otherwise (especially if "one thing leads to another", e.g. because of group dynamics).
Also, if we understand that slavery is wrong not just because it is evil, but because it is demonstrably incompatible with a notion of right and wrong based on minimizing human suffering while maximum personal liberty, it is obvious why it is objectionable to tolerate cultures that consider this behaviour acceptable.
In other words, aside from the ethically neutral aspects of a culture (e.g. creation myths, funny hats and silly rituals), one culture can be objectively better or worse than another.
Of course changing worse cultures for the better is a long and time-consuming process. The recent failures in the Middle East and the Arab world are good examples of why you can't just invade a place and force the inhabitants to adopt modern values.
But teaching someone to be a good person is much easier when they're well-fed and don't have to fear for their life, health or fortune.
(For the record, this isn't about Islam or Christianity or even any religion at all -- any culture that perpetuates harmful values has to change, whether those values are based on religion, tradition or mere lack of consideration; religions just tend to get more offended when you try to tell them they are wrong.)
What I meant was, it seems to me that these evil practices are far more culturally accepted in these places compared to an average Western culture. And I think there are reasons for that other than mere poverty. People have lived in poverty throughout history, throughout the world. Poverty is essentially universal. But selling one's own children into sex slavery is not. Plenty of people living in poverty still have strong moral values.
> Evil is an intuitive but ultimately ineffective concept. These behaviours are harmful both to the individual and to society at large. They unilaterally violate the personal liberty and human rights of the victim. That's why we consider them evil, not the other way around.
Respectfully, I think this is a narrow view. There are other cultures which place much lower value on personal liberty and individual rights, but would still consider such practices abhorrent. Now you are right that these behaviors do violate personal liberty and rights, and so to us, that is another reason why they are wrong. But there are groups who have little concept of personal liberty and rights, yet would never consider such a thing acceptable.
In fact, this is part of the problem: here we have people divided into two groups, geographically at least. One group can exploit the other--with no cost to its own society. These evil men get on a plane, have their fun, and return home, thousands of miles away, leaving their wake of destruction far behind.
And the families of these exploited children do not care about their children's personal liberty or rights. They sell them and then shut the door in their faces when they return. To them, it's acceptable to dispose of one family member to get a few dollars that the rest of the family can use.
> That's why we consider them evil, not the other way around.
I don't think it is a one-way function. Violating personal liberty and individual rights are innately evil. If this were not so, then whether they were evil would only depend on whether you valued personal liberty and rights. If you don't--and many people don't!--then they would not be considered evil. And this is exactly what we are seeing here.
You can go to them and try to convince them that they are harming optimal social interactions, but why should they care? To them, the people being harmed are not even part of society. They are...no better than animals.
Maybe what I'm trying to say is that, what is considered "natural" is irrelevant. People can "naturally" behave one way or another, depending on how they were raised, genetic disorders, mental illnesses, brain injuries, etc.
What matters is right and wrong, good and evil. These behaviors are not merely suboptimal--they are innately wrong. They are not wrong because they are inefficient--they are wrong because they are wrong. (Yes, circular, unless you want to go into the sources of morality. And ultimately that is probably required.)
The reason I want to emphasize that is that defining evil by harm to society is completely relative. If you exclude someone from society, then whether something harms them no longer matters, and then it would no longer be evil. And then when you try to tell someone to stop doing it, they look at you funny and say, "Why?"
Utilitarianism and relativism lead to tyranny. If something works, and the victim doesn't count, then they aren't a victim, and it isn't wrong. And for the people on the safe side of the line, without external, absolute moral values, they have no reason to change their behavior.
I'm arguing for ethics based on fundamental axioms, most of which can be broken down to the Golden Rule. This isn't Western, this is just frequently obscured by irrelevant "morals", like those set forth by various religions.
Heck, the international human rights are a pretty good rendition of it: every human is equal (i.e. disregard kinship bias), every human is free, personal freedoms end where they impact the freedom of others. Yes, the hard questions are hard, but the level of the vast majority of real world problems does not even come close to them.
If anything, I'm arguing for Kant's Moral Imperative, but that's just me being German.