It's been alleged that " We should be able to draw basic moral lines.". The question then becomes on what basis and are those "moral lines" objective? Are they the same for all people, in all cultures, in all times, throughout all history? If the answer is yes, then on what basis does one make that assertion? If no, then how does one determine which version is correct?
Specifically, in the area of sexual assault, how does one deal with the academics and scientists suggesting that sexual assault/rape is hard wired into humans?
" we should be able to draw reasonable moral lines against those sexual predators"
Once again, we ask, on what basis does one draw those "lines" objectively, and what if rape is a "natural biological phenomenon"?
This is just a selection of folx who would assert that science disagrees with the above as it relates to sexual assault.
I've included some quotes and some links. It's not exhaustive, but should be sufficient.
Lets start with the state of Virginia and HB 257, which was passed by the VA house. https://openstates.org/va/bills/2020/HB257/
"Eliminates the requirement for reports to be made to division
superintendents and school principals on incidents involving assault or
assault and battery, without bodily injury, of any person on a school
bus, on school property, or at a school-sponsored activity. The bill
also eliminates the requirement that school principals report certain
enumerated acts that may constitute a misdemeanor offense to law
enforcement. "
Apparently there are a significant number of DFL lawmakers that don't consider sexual assault a "basic moral line".
Back in the days of Clinton's sexual shenanigans, Richard Dawkins explained that our evolutionary ancestors were not monogamous, but were harem builders. Where any male who monopolized power and wealth could also monopolize females thus ensuring the survival of his genes.
Demonic Males: A predisposition to violence "is written in the molecular chemistry of DNA.": Dale Peterson and Richard Wrangham
The Natural History of Rape:Biological Bases of Sexual Assault: Rape is "a natural biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage." it's akin to "the leopard's spotsand the giraffe's elongated neck" Randy Thornhill
Randy Thornhill: If evolution is true, then "every feature of every living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background. that's not a debatable matter." NPR Interview
"Human rape appears not as an aberration but as an alternative
gene-promotion strategy that is most likely to be adopted by the
'losers' in the competitive, harem-building struggle. If the means of
access to legitimate, consenting sex is not available, then a male may
be faced with the choice between force or genetic extinction. Wilson, Glenn. The Science of Sex: Glenn Wilson on Rape. The Great Sex Divide, pp. 128–131. http://www.heretical.com/wilson/rape.html
" He also describes some conditions in the ancestral environment during
which the reproductive gains from rape may have outweighed the costs:
"High status males may have been able to coerce matings with little fear of reprisal."
"Low status women (e.g., orphans) may have been particularly
vulnerable to being raped because males need not have feared reprisals
from the woman's family."
"During war, raping enemy women may have had few negative repercussions."
"Men who were low status, who were likely to remain low status, and
who had few opportunities to invest in kin may have realized
reproductive benefits that outweighed the considerable costs (e.g.,
reprisal by the woman's family)." http://human.projects.anth.ucsb.edu/epfaq/evpsychfaq_full.html#rape
"Evolutionary psychologist David Buss
states that clear-cut evidence for or against rape as an adaptation is
lacking. He states that rape may instead be a non-adaptive by-product of
other evolved mechanisms, such as desire for sexual variety and for sex
without investment, sensitivity to sexual opportunities, and a general
capacity for physical aggression."
Buss, David (2019). "Conflict Between the Sexes". Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind (Sixth ed.). Routledge. ISBN 9780429590061.
https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/merlinos/thornhill.html
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228623286_Why_Do_Men_Rape_An_Evolutionary_Psychological_Perspective
http://human.projects.anth.ucsb.edu/epfaq/rape.html
The interesting thing about these sorts of scientific papers and academic works is that the only option is to be able to provide proof that they're wrong. The biggest problem is that acceptance of this scientism or of the Darwinian based worldview means that intellectual consistency would suggest that by accepting the premise of philosophical/methodological naturalism, and that macro evolution explains life and the diversity of life, then the rest of the worldview simply comes along with the package.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
The question then becomes on what basis and are those "moral lines" objective? Are they the same for all people, in all cultures, in all times, throughout all history? If the answer is yes, then on what basis does one make that assertion? If no, then how does one determine which version is correct?
Do no harm. Don't cause harm to innocent people. Allow people their own human rights, just as you'd like to enjoy your human rights.
Is drawing the line on where not to cause harm entirely objective? No. (As it appears you agree).
Nonetheless, reasonable people can agree on a great deal of what this looks like.
Does it cause harm to drive a car in a city, as long as you do so safely? Due to air pollution, yes, it causes harm in the congregate (i.e. when many/most people drive, then the pollution gets sufficiently bad as to cause harm to some people)... but where is that line? How many drivers are too many?
This is an example where it may not be objectively clear where that line lies.
But should I take someone's car without their permission? Should I hit them over the head and forcibly take their keys to take the car? Should I rape a woman? A child? Should I engage in sex with a woman who has passed out (and thus, can't say no)? Should I beat a child? Should I steal someone's wallet? Should I steal someone's kidney? Should I assault someone? What if they've made me angry?
On a great number of behaviors, there is no confusion. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you, as the moral teaching is taught in nearly all religions and is recognized by most reasonable people, aside from the religion.
It's just not that hard, in the main. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. It's not an entirely objective measure, but it is a widespread and understandable measure.
Aside from that, what else would you use? Some particular group's OPINIONS about what their particular god thinks is moral (in that group's opinion)? Why that group? What if other groups have different opinions about that particular god's opinions?
Using religion as a measure is an extremely haphazard, inconsistent and unreliable measure, as it ultimately falls back to some particular GROUP's or INDIVIDUAL's opinions on what that religion says/teaches.
Are they the same for all people, in all cultures, in all times, throughout all history?
No. But generally speaking, "Do unto others" is FAIRLY universal and reasonably extrapolated if one believes in and affirms the notion of human rights for all. And again, outside of that measure, what are you going to use? ONE particular GROUP's hunch about what is and isn't moral?
No thanks. That sounds very immoral, from a rational point of view.
If no, then how does one determine which version is correct?
Reason. We settle on the Golden Rule (do unto others, do no harm, etc) because it is reasonably affirmed by those who affirm the notion that some things are self-evident, including that all people are equal and deserving of basic human rights.
If there truly were/are some groups who don't affirm this, then their starting point is self-defeating. If they believe that "WE are the ones who determine what is good and bad and no one else can or should and OUR position is objective..." They are just wrong - demonstrably wrong on the point that their position is objective and The ONE TRUE position.
And that they would seek to say that THEY are the ones who get to decide, then they are deciding what is self-evident to most of the world.
Is it perfect and objective? No. But NOTHING IS.
Do you agree?
On the other hand, it's just not that difficult, as long as you start from the rational view point that some things are self-evident, including that all people are equal and deserving of human rights.
As to scientists, while they may find some behaviors are built-in or part of the evolutionary process, that doesn't mean that those behaviors are moral or rational in a modern context. Science does not dictate morals, just data.
I’ll note that your first comment is a spectacular example of you expressing your opinion in a manner that makes it appear that you’re making claims of fact.
As to your second comment. That’s an interesting opinion, both devoid of factual backing, and contracting the overwhelming views of both scientists and academics.
I’ll be honest, I didn’t expect you to actually argue against the scientists and academics quoted and linked, but your choice not to engage with the views of scientists and academics in any way is disappointing even for you.
I’d be happy to provide you with the citations of scientific explanations for morality for you to ignore as well.
Do you disagree with anything I'm saying? If so, what? Be specific.
Have you not read anything I’ve written today? Is your impatience and lack of grace of such importance to you that all you can do is whine?
I’d point out specifically that your comments are simply your opinions., and that you specifically didn’t address any of the scientist and academics claims. That’s pretty specific, but it’s an excellent example of you asking for something you won’t provide.
Since we've already established that you (and I) can't objectively prove our hunches about those actions of which God approves (or doesn't), yes, we're talking about opinions. I've been pretty clear.
And I'm just noting that you have plenty of time (ALL the time) to say, "Your opinions are wrong and somehow vaguely lacking... SOMETHING" regularly, but rarely if ever does it seem you have time to be specific. Since we've already agreed that your opinions about, for instance, God's opinions on gay folk marrying or abortion are subjective opinions, not provable objective facts, I don't see where we're disagreeing. But you tell me.
As to the scientists, I don't know that any of your links are saying that they have scientifically demonstrated the moral nature of rape (I'd be willing to bet they DON'T, I certainly didn't see anything remotely like that as I read through them), I don't know what it is you're suggesting I address about the research you're citing.
IF they are not arguing, "Rape is moral, even good..." I don't know what there is to respond to. Perhaps you can be clear about that, too, when you get around to it.
Perhaps you should have read what you so cavalierly dismissed, that would be a place to start. A second place that might be helpful is to not misrepresent what I’ve said and to have responded to what I’ve said as well as what the scientists/academics have said.
But you’ve not done that yet, I suspect you won’t going forward.
From one of your links, I find this...
Of course, none of this ‘genetic logic’ is conscious,
nor does it constitute moral justification for rape...
Which gets to your question...
Once again, we ask, on what basis does one draw those "lines" objectively, and what if rape is a "natural biological phenomenon"?
OF COURSE, rape is not moral. It causes harm to innocent victims. THAT is why it's not moral, because it violates human rights. Of course. Do you need more than that? On what basis? The basis that it violates human rights and causes unwanted harm to innocent people. It violates the near universal moral common agreement to Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. THAT is the basis.
Do you disagree? Do you think there is some other basis?
And just to point out, again,the scientists are not arguing that there is a scientific justification that says rape is moral or good. Quite the contrary. If that's what you're trying to suggest these scientists are saying, I don't believe they are.
What IF rape is a natural biological phenomena? That does not make it moral. Something being natural is not, in and of itself, support for something being moral. There's more. Of course.
A momma animal might eat her young. Doesn't make it moral for humans to do so just because it's natural.
Two gay guys marrying is, on the other hand, moral because it is natural AND because it doesn't cause someone harm/doesn't violate human rights or the Golden Rule.
Where am I mistaken? What criteria are you looking for to make something moral?
Re," perhaps you should have read..."
I don't know what you mean here, since you're not saying anything specific and I did read.
Re... " not misrepresent when I've said..."
Again, not sure what you're saying here since, again, you're not saying anything specific. I don't know what it is you think I've misrepresented.
Dan,
As I look at the original post, and your responses, I don't actually find much commonality between the two.
The specific problem you have is that I've provided multiple sources from both science and the academy who are arguing specifically that sexual assault/rape is a "natural biological phenomenon".
Instead of offering a specific rebuttal to the specific scientific/academic claims I've provided, you've offered a broad, vague, generic ethic with absolutely zero scientific backing. Nor have you engaged with the scientific/academic arguments that I've presented.
You've offered an ethic that values selfless behavior, that is predicated on selflessness yet you've offered absolutely no evidence that there is a scientific advantage conferred on those who put others first.
So, despite your demands, I view your comments as merely an attempt to move the conversation away from the topic of my post, to a topic that you would rather discuss.
So, if you'd like to address the original post, and either agree with the science/academic viewpoints presented, or rebut them objectively, you are free to do so. Once you engage with the original topic of the post, then I'll consider allowing the discussion to move on from there.
Craig... As I look at the original post, and your responses, I don't actually find much commonality between the two.
? You've asked questions. I've answered them directly and clearly. Am I missing something?
You asked... the question then becomes on what basis and are those "moral lines" objective?
I answered: On the basis of Golden Rule/Human Rights/Do no harm to innocents to the first part and No to the second part (are they objective?)
You asked... Are they the same for all people, in all cultures, in all times, throughout all history?
I answered: No.
You asked... If no, then how does one determine which version is correct?
I answered: Reason. We settle on the Golden Rule (do unto others, do no harm, etc) because it is reasonably affirmed by those who affirm the notion that some things are self-evident, including that all people are equal and deserving of basic human rights.
Do you find "not much commonality" between your questions and my direct, clear, reasoned answers? Or are you speaking about something else (all this about the research you've cited)? Because, like my answers or not, they ARE directly answering your questions with my thoughts on the matter, so I don't see how it's not having "commonality."
I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but I'm not understanding how your responses have anything to do with my comments. feel free to answer questions to clarify if you so desire.
Thanks.
"Of course. Do you need more than that? On what basis? The basis that it violates human rights and causes unwanted harm to innocent people. It violates the near universal moral common agreement to Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. THAT is the basis."
1. You haven't proven this near universal moral common agreement exists, nor what it specifically contains. The subject of this post is the fact that there is a scientific/academic strain of thought that argues that sexual assault/rape is "natural", that it provides positive evolutionary effects. The scientific?academic argument being made isn't about morality, it's about necessity and success. You're not refuting that argument being made.
"Do you disagree? Do you think there is some other basis?"
Clearly there is a scientific/academic basis that I've presented part of here. You're arguing personal preference, against arguments made from science/the academy. Two different topic.
The questions is, "If a behavior is "natural", if it provides a scientifically demonstrated advantage, then it's not a question of morality.
"Of course. Do you need more than that? On what basis? The basis that it violates human rights and causes unwanted harm to innocent people. It violates the near universal moral common agreement to Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. THAT is the basis."
Yet it also causes benefits for some people, on what scientific or objective basis can you demonstrate that these "natural" acts aren't moral. We're told that the presence of same sex intercourse on the parts of some animals, justifies the morality of human homosexual behavior. I guess consistency goes out the window when necessary. Again, I'm not asking for a "moral" argument. I'm asking that you demonstrate that subjective morality trumps science/academia.
"Again, not sure what you're saying here since, again, you're not saying anything specific. I don't know what it is you think I've misrepresented."
The comments you deleted are still here, as are the lies you told about them.
I see what you've done. You've chosen to treat that preamble to the post as part of the post. The questions you answered are copy/pasted from elsewhere and your responded elsewhere.
What you've chosen not to engage with is the scientific/academic position which is offering an alternative to your opinions about what "morality" should be.
They're generally arguing that behavior that gives animals an evolutionary advantage can't be judged as a moral issue, it's a behavior that's "written in our DNA".
You're simply repeating your subjective opinion about what "should" be moral, without any basis to assert should.
But, you just keep telling yourself that you've provided the argument that trumps the scientists and academics, it'll probably make you feel good about yourself.
One more suggestion. If you want to rebut the science/academic positions presented have a ball. If you want to explain the VA house bill, explain away. If you're just going to repeat your opinions, save your time and effort.
I'll post then, because I choose grace, but I'm not going to respond.
Dan,
You’re arguing for a “near universal” moral code that a look at history or the news tells us isn’t “near universally” followed.
The scientists/academics are arguing that sexual assault/rape served a pragmatic, utilitarian function that benefits the propagation of society. They’re arguing that the continued existence of behaviors is prima facie evidence that those behaviors are beneficial to human existence.
What you haven’t even attempted is to prove how your “near universal” moral code is more true or valuable than the scientific/academic position.
What you seem content with is to maintain your “near universal” moral code as something that’s a personal choice based on opinion, but that’s not claiming to be aTrue. While allowing the scientific/academic arguments to be accepted as True (or at least unchallenged) because science is in a different realm that morality.
Until you can prove that your “near universal” moral code is better or True, then you’ll cede Truth ti science/academia.
Finally, I’d argue that a “near universal” moral code, that doesn’t stay consistent, and isn’t followed “nearly universally” is self refuting. If it’s not compelling or valuable enough for people to live by it, then what good is something acknowledged but not lived.
Would you agree that according to the moral code you claim exists, it’s wrong to falsely accuse someone of engaging in or supporting someone for the rape of someone else? Would you agree that those false accusations cause harm?
Science/academia is arguing that since the desire to rape is embedded in our DNA, that at least some people are born that way. If someone is born that way, why shouldn’t they live the way that they were born to live?
Is it possible that, absent a working understanding of Scottish Common Sense Realism, that the term “self-evident” might have meant something different to the writers of the Declaration than to someone with a 21 st century post modern worldview?
Post a Comment