"Normal" and "Natural"

Before I even start, the title should tell you what I'm going to be writing about, right? Putting these two together, we know where I'm going with this. Well, you'd be wrong.

"Normal" is an interesting thing. It has a definition. It's definition, by design, is hazy. No, not the definition, but the working out of it. The definition is pretty simple and commonly understood: "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual". Easy, right? That which conforms to the common or standard is "normal" and that which is "unusual" is not. Of course, defining "usual" isn't always simple. However, note that the term carries no value judgment. There is "normal" and there is "not normal" and the value judgment that might result from this description is consequent to, not part of the description. That is, if the standard of "normal" has a value judgment (say, "tall is good"), and a person or thing doesn't meet that standard (defined, then, as "not normal"), then the conclusion would be a value judgment, but not the definition of "not normal". So, just for instance, if 3% of a population have a classification that is outside of the other 97%, that cannot be considered normal. That doesn't necessarily mean it is good or bad, but it does necessarily require that the 3% are not normal.

Here, let me give an example. I remember seeing a fascinating story about this young boy that was born without arms or legs. Now, it was a story at all because this boy was not normal. I mean, if everyone was born without arms or legs, this boy wouldn't have been a story. But the very fact that his condition was not normal made it a story. And no one would say that because he was not normal he was bad. He was not born with the normal limbs, and this did not reflect negatively on him. There, you see? "Not normal" does not necessarily mean "bad".

The story was really interesting. It was about how he got along in life. He had the support of a large family. The story followed him waking up in the morning and, on his own, strapping on artificial limbs. It followed him through the day as he went about his daily routines working hard to operate normally with an abnormal condition. He was a brave kid and you admired his courage, his spirit, his attitude. Yes, he had problems from birth, but they didn't serve to define him or to prevent him from proceeding with life.

It could be said that his condition was "natural". That is, it wasn't artificial. He wasn't a victim of an accident that deprived him of his limbs. He was born that way. Now, I don't know of anyone who would say, "Because he was born that way it is a good thing." I also don't know of anyone who would say, "Because he was born that way he is bad." "Born that way" in his case indicated that it was "natural", even if it was not "normal". But this amazing kid worked every day at overcoming his natural condition in order to be more normal. And we admire him for it. We recognize that overcoming a natural condition in order to be normal can be a good thing. We applaud this brave little boy who didn't allow his birth condition to determine his life definition.

Okay, maybe I have discussed what you thought I was going to.