Godless morality

[The Magic Pudding]

Prima facie this seems reasonable; and this utilitarian outlook seems very fashionable amongst the new atheists. However there is a real problem in terms of measuring pleasure.

When you start measuring relative pleasure in the context of rape you've lost me altogether.
I'd rather see a rapists head on a stick than consider any "concurrent benefit to a rapist".

To take a more subtle example. The benefit cheat can go from a hand to mouth lifestyle to real comfort. The harm done to others measures in the fraction of a penny. How can we tell which of the following moral arguments is correct:

i)While the harm done to each member of society is very small the collective harm outweighs the benefit to the cheat; therefore cheating the benefit system is a moral wrong.
ii)The harm done to society is so small and diffuse that the considerable benefit to the cheat is more significant; therefore cheating the benefit system is not a moral wrong.

 The only way to resolve such a disagreement is by measurement. However we cannot measure pleasure and harm.

I think morals should serve society.
Society suffers if people steal from it.
To discourage theft we punish thieves.
The 2nd option offends a sense of fairplay and honest people may take some pleasure in seeing justice done.
Though I don't see why I need to measure the balance of pleasure.

So, if you will indulge in a spot of navel-gazing. Why is rape wrong?

I could say this is another kind of stealing, a very ugly and destructive kind.

I profoundly agree. My only promlem is this; can't I take your statement “Just because morals are subjective doesn’t mean they are not valuable” and replace it with: "Just because belief in God is subjective doesn’t mean that it is not valuable” and use that to justify my behaviour?

If a belief in god is valuable to you that's OK.
I will question if values flowing from it serve society or the religion.

[humblesmurph]

penfold, rape is wrong because you wouldn't want somebody to rape you.  Golden rule isn't all that complicated is it?

[skwurll]

I may not be on par with the level of debate in this thread, but I'm pretty sure we can all agree rape is wrong, no matter the amount of pleasure experienced by the rapist, the victim is still being harmed, both physically and mentally.

I am of the opinion that nothing can justify rape, and nothing said can convince me otherwise.

[Tank]

I may not be on par with the level of debate in this thread, but I'm pretty sure we can all agree rape is wrong, no matter the amount of pleasure experienced by the rapist, the victim is still being harmed, both physically and mentally.

I am of the opinion that nothing can justify rape, and nothing said can convince me otherwise.

There is a perfectly sensible mechanistic justification for some rapes. A male that does not form a monogamous relationship with a female only has rape or infidelity on the part of a female, as an option to reproduce. Like it or not there is a sound biological imperative behind some cases of rape. Rape is considered bad by women because of the detrimental physical and psychological effects on the woman. It is considered bad by men because it means their personal womb is being exploited by another man, the cuckoo syndrome.

I didn't like to write what I have just written because I know it appears crass and unsympathetic to victims of rape. However if we don't face up to the issues of our own 'selfish genes' we will never find a solution to them.

Sorry for the derail and I apologise in advance for the upset I now this post will cause some of you, that is of course not my intent, only to highlight that there is a practical and pragmatic cause of rape in some cases. That still does not mean that the act is ever justifiable from the view of the victim or the society in which they live. But from a mechanistic view of gene survival rape is a justifiable reproductive strategy and therefore we should expect to see it as a behaviour in sexually reproducing organisms.

[The Magic Pudding]

It is considered bad by men because it means their personal womb is being exploited by another man, the cuckoo syndrome.

My seeing rape as bad has little to do with defending my "personal womb".
I abhor the rape of people who don't possess a womb at all.
This mechanistic justification can only be seen as a justification in a very limited sense, having little to do with human society.
Cannibalism, murder of competitors and their offspring can be seen in animals.  
The expenditure of energy may be justified as it feeds and enables genes to be passed on.
I suggest a purpose of morals should be to prevent antisocial bestial behaviour.

[humblesmurph]

There is a perfectly sensible mechanistic justification for some rapes. A male that does not form a monogamous relationship with a female only has rape or infidelity on the part of a female, as an option to reproduce. Like it or not there is a sound biological imperative behind some cases of rape. Rape is considered bad by women because of the detrimental physical and psychological effects on the woman. It is considered bad by men because it means their personal womb is being exploited by another man, the cuckoo syndrome.

I didn't like to write what I have just written because I know it appears crass and unsympathetic to victims of rape. However if we don't face up to the issues of our own 'selfish genes' we will never find a solution to them.

Sorry for the derail and I apologise in advance for the upset I now this post will cause some of you, that is of course not my intent, only to highlight that there is a practical and pragmatic cause of rape in some cases. That still does not mean that the act is ever justifiable from the view of the victim or the society in which they live. But from a mechanistic view of gene survival rape is a justifiable reproductive strategy and therefore we should expect to see it as a behaviour in sexually reproducing organisms.

Human beings are just animals--but then we aren't.  There are practical reasons for lions or bears or lemurs to rape, not humans.  I don't need a syndrome name to explain why I don't want a man's penis in my asshole.  That's not to say I don't want anything to go up there.  At some later date I will go to a doctor and pay for a prostate exam.  

Rape is not an effective means of procreation in humans. Those of you who have tried to have children know it isn't always that easy.  If you rape a woman, it stands to reason you only get to do it one time (because she hated it), in which case the likelihood of her getting pregnant is low even if she is fertile.  Obviously if she is using birth control pregnancy is highly improbable.  Among those women who do get pregnant from being raped, many abort the pregnancy.  

For rape to be justified in humans, would be to place the woman in the position of a thing.  Let's assume this in itself is horribly wrong (though it is).  Given the premise that the likelihood of impregnating a woman after raping her is relatively low, it would seem to me that rape as a procreation tool in humans would have to be serial rape.  If a man goes around raping lot's of women, he won't get far until he runs into a woman who defends herself with lethal force, or has friends or family willing to do same in her defense.  

All the while the rapist is going around raping trying to spread his seed--the non-sociopath is making babies the far more effective way--consensual sex.

[Tank]

It is considered bad by men because it means their personal womb is being exploited by another man, the cuckoo syndrome.

My seeing rape as bad has little to do with defending my "personal womb".

I don't doubt that at all, I should have said 'In addition to the natural sympathy for a victim of a violent crime there would be blah blah blah'

I abhor the rape of people who don't possess a womb at all.

Again I was looking purely at the evolutionary imperatives of reproductive rape.

This mechanistic justification can only be seen as a justification in a very limited sense, having little to do with human society.

Yep. I agree. But I was answering the very broad comment that rape could never by justified, I'm not keen on absolutes. The act of rape can be justified from a 'selfish gene' perspective if no other reproductive mechanism is available. I do believe that Koala bears, as cute as they may be, effectively reproduce through non-consensual sex all the time. But if it isn't obvious I'd better state that if some guy attempted to use this argument as a way of justifying his behaviour I wouldn't give him the time of day in a court of law, I'd send him down no-questions asked. If he had been driven by a genetic/reproductive imperative and couldn't control himself once, I wouldn't give him a chance to fail to restrain himself again!

Cannibalism, murder of competitors and their offspring can be seen in animals.  
The expenditure of energy may be justified as it feeds and enables genes to be passed on.
I suggest a purpose of morals should be to prevent antisocial bestial behaviour.

In the sense that morality stops conflict in a social animal then I would concur.

[humblesmurph]

Tank, Even after you showed me the quote feature I'm still having problems with it (morons are good people too ) Anyway, it seems ours is a problem of semantics.  In my general understanding of the word "rape", it can only really apply to women.  Animals who get "raped" never go on Oprah crying about it or file police reports. Not to make light of it, but there's no way to know whether the sex between two animals is consensual regardless of how rough and violent it may appear to us humans.

The way I understand "justify" as in being justified in raping somebody--is excusing somebody from punishment. The selfish gene doesn't absolve a rapist in any case.  The gene isn't doing the raping, the man is, and he is culpable.

[Tank]

Tank, Even after you showed me the quote feature I'm still having problems with it (morons are good people too )

Practice on the thread I pointed out to you if you like, it'll make sense if you stick at it. PM me if you're really stuck.

Anyway, it seems ours is a problem of semantics.  In my general understanding of the word "rape", it can only really apply to women.  Animals who get "raped" never go on Oprah crying about it or file police reports. Not to make light of it, but there's no way to know whether the sex between two animals is consensual regardless of how rough and violent it may appear to us humans.

Yes I think we are running into the limitations of language to some extent. I'll try and find the clip of koalas mating where the male basically chased the female up the tree and mated with her. In the process of trying to find that clip it does appear that koalas do normally have a mating ritual so non-consensual mating is not the norm, which rather show that there can be examples of 'rape' in animals other than humans.

The way I understand "justify" as in being justified in raping somebody--is excusing somebody from punishment. The selfish gene doesn't absolve a rapist in any case.  The gene isn't doing the raping, the man is, and he is culpable.

Now there is a thread in it's own right! He is culpable because he is capable of thought and consideration, even though his genes may be the reason, they are not a socially acceptable excuse for his behaviour.

[karadan]

penfold, rape is wrong because you wouldn't want somebody to rape you.  Golden rule isn't all that complicated is it?

Jessica Biel is more than welcome to rape me.

[humblesmurph]

Sometimes I kiss my lady all over and embrace her lovingly before coitus--sometimes I just bend her over.  In either case it's fun consensual sex.  Just because animals copulate in ways unconventional for the species that doesn't mean a rape occurred. In any case, if rape does occur in animals, how does it follow that it is justified?  I just don't buy the "gene" made me do thing in regards to rape. This rape gene must be pretty weak because the vast majority (somewhere north of 99.9%) of men are not rapists.

[humblesmurph]

penfold, rape is wrong because you wouldn't want somebody to rape you.  Golden rule isn't all that complicated is it?

Jessica Biel is more than welcome to rape me.

She could "rape" me too.  However, we trivialize the act when we say things like that. Obviously, if you want it to happen it ain't rape.

[The Magic Pudding]

I do believe that Koala bears, as cute as they may be, effectively reproduce through non-consensual sex all the time.

Whether this is so or not I wish they could do it more quietly.

I regard absolutes with suspicion, but this mechanistic justification seems out of context when discussing the morality of rape.

[The Magic Pudding]

Jessica Biel is more than welcome to rape me.

How about if she is the type of rapist who likes to leave a victim’s genitals mutilated?

[NothingSacred]

I may not be on par with the level of debate in this thread, but I'm pretty sure we can all agree rape is wrong, no matter the amount of pleasure experienced by the rapist, the victim is still being harmed, both physically and mentally.

I am of the opinion that nothing can justify rape, and nothing said can convince me otherwise.

Rapists experience disadvantages as well, There are mental issues, the inability to interact in a healthily in a social environment, not to mention the potential for disease, and the potential to be killed by a victim. It's a no win situation.