Do Materialists Believe Rape is Wrong?

_{Barry Arrington

February 25, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have a question for our materialist friends. Let’s imagine a group of chimpanzees. Say one of the male chimps approaches one of the female chimps and makes chimp signals that he wants to have sexual relations with her, but for whatever reason she’s not interested and refuses. Is it morally wrong for the male chimp to force the female chimp to have sex with him against her will?

If you answer “no it is not morally wrong,” imagine further a group of humans. On the materialist view, a human is just a jumped up hairless ape. Is it morally wrong for a human male to force a human female to have sex with him against her will? If you answer “yes, it is morally wrong,” I certainly agree with you. But please explain why on the materialist view it is not wrong for a hairy ape to force a female to have sex with him, but it is wrong for a hairless ape to force a female to have sex with him.

Comments

@Barry: In #84, I answered your question. So, would you like to answer mine now - as you have announced in #78? Here it is again: Would you argue that a six year old child which kills a man while playing with a shotgun should be treated like an adult? After all, their DNA are nearly identical! Or do you concede that we generally (whether we are materialists or not) judge (human) beings not by their DNA, but by their behaviour and capabilities? UD Editor: No, you have not answered the question. You don't even seem to understand the question.DiEb_{March 3, 2012
March
03
Mar
3
03
2012
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT}

LarTanner:
Why should materialism be obligated to objectively verify morality?
That would depend on how "materialistic" you are. If you are a watered-down materialist who only subscribes to materialistic explanations inside a lab, but when out in society subscribe to the moral framework bestowed upon you by a long history of Judaeo-Christian values and traditions, then materialism does not sound too bad for you because you already have some form of a moral world view that is effectively objective (which is not a product of purely materialistic explanations despite the inadequate attempts to explain it that way). And if you are one of those militant atheist materialists who keep spouting slanders against religion being "evil" and thus implying the objectivity of evil, while at the same spouting contradictory claims about morality being totally subjective. Then you need to provide an objective moral basis on which you can pass judgement against religion being evil. Only then would such attacks on religion be substantiated. And if you are against those strict materialists who approve of materialist practicality & benefits at the expense of empathy through such acts as slavery, eugenics, population reduction...etc. Then you definitely need an objective moral basis to justify the values of empathy and compassion that would implore you to oppose such cruel ideas which are, scary enough, justifiable by the strict materialism that views humans as "chunks of matter" living in a world of "pitiless indifference" as Dawkins put it.
You say: “From a theistic perspective, rape is objectively wrong in all cases.” This statement is false, as far as I can tell. Several theistic perspectives have either explicitly or implicitly tolerated rape in certain situations. I have no knowledge of rape in any theistic culture being a virtue specifically, but to say it is objectively wrong in all cases ignores that in some historical times and circumstances rape (say of a slave or a person in a conquered culture) has been accepted.
How does the fact of some theists misusing their own beliefs supposed to bring down the larger moral basis of theism? You said it yourself, there is no theistic society where rape is tolerated or considered a virtue, so what does this say about theism? It says that under theism rape is wrong. Can you prove that theism justifies rape under some circumstances? And please don't misquote the Bible. I'm not even a chrisitian anyways. But as far as I know, I never heard of a case where any holy book says something that explicitly permits rape. Keep in mind I'm talking about what theism says, not what people claim to do in its name. By the way, even if theism explicitly justifies rape and thus allowing it to be a common practice, for the sake of argument, how would you even judge this act to be objectively wrong? Afterall, if morality is subjective, then those theists are simply acting by their agreed upon subjective social constructs, right? They can even argue from materialism that those who practice rape have a reproductive advantage. So why should you even judge the actions of such people if materialism was "amoral" as you put it?Shogun_{March 1, 2012
March
03
Mar
1
01
2012
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Goodusername writes,
I’m not so sure about that. It might be interesting to ask someone who’s studied chimps as to what happens if one chimp rapes another – but I have heard before from primatologists that in such cases the rapist will at least get a good pummeling from the other chimps and likely be excluded from the group (resulting in likely death). If we were talking about frogs I’d probably chalk it up to instinct, but in the case of chimps I think empathy and reason are at play.
It could be a form of empathy, but I wouldn’t necessarily call it reason. Chimps and other animals simply don’t have the capacity to reason and understand abstract concepts such as hate or revenge.
Because we have more developed brains – we’re smarter, more reasonable, and have developed a higher degree of empathy.
This is true, but I would state that it’s because we are created that way. Man is capable of reason; animals are not. Man can appreciate concepts such as art and music whereas animals cannot.
We DO procreate and spread our genes, but I wouldn’t say that “we exist” to do so (although we exist BECAUSE we do so).
And yet this is the message that many scientists spread, notably Richard Dawkins with his ‘selfish gene’ theory.
I didn’t say it “tells us nothing”, I said it doesn’t tell us to DO anything.
Well, according to what I’ve read, we exist in order to procreate; this is evolution working subliminally or subconsciously on humans.
As I said, gravity tells us what will happen if I knock my monitor over – but that isn’t a command to do so. If we only allow those with the hairiest knuckles to breed, humans will have hairier knuckles in a few generations – but that isn’t a command for us to do so. And it isn’t much more helpful in answering questions about morality than a falling monitor.
But if evolution doesn’t tell us to do anything—including how to behave in a moral manner—then where and why did humans develop these moral concepts? If evolution doesn’t tell us that rape is wrong, then why have humans decided that it is?
I don’t equate ‘natural’ with ‘good’ or ‘legal’. It’s kinda hard for me to see how murder isn’t ‘natural’ – killing exists throughout the natural world, and has been in every human society, and for as long as history has records.
But does that make it right? That is the issue. Murder and rape have been around for millenia, but are they normal or aberrant behaviors?
Compare that to riding a bike… that’s about as unnatural as it gets. It’s an artificial contraption that exists no where in nature, is in relatively few human societies, and only recently. Which is more natural? But, to me, that’s completely irrelevant to the question of what should be legal.
Riding a bike isn’t illegal, either. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
Saying “ultimate standard of good” just seems like another way of saying “objective”. I do agree that if God exists, there may certainly be good reasons to follow his rules.
I think the two can be equated. You have to have an ultimate, or objective, standard by which behaviors (good or bad) can be measured.Barb_{March 1, 2012
March
03
Mar
1
01
2012
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

"As for the attempt to suggest that materialism...is not a worldview ." No, I am fully aware that it IS a worldview. It most certainly is a particular understanding of what the universe is and how it works. What I said is that it is not a "worldview foundation," which I think is your term. And what I mean is that materialism does not make for a philosophy by which one might live a "good" life, however one defines good. I have made this precise point in different ways. In comment #48 of this thread, Barry seems to agree with me when he says "No argument here." As for the "problem of good": I understand the larger point in raising it as a challenge to atheists and/or materialists. Yet this is a well-worn topic, and I have nothing new to add. All I can say is that it is not a problem for the actual atheist but for the would-be atheist.LarTanner_{March 1, 2012
March
03
Mar
1
01
2012
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

F/N: Defining the problem of good:
In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” Boethius contrasts the problem that evil poses for theism with the problem that good poses for atheism. The problem of good does not receive nearly as much attention as the problem evil, but it is the more basic problem. That’s because evil always presupposes a good that has been subverted. [In fact that is a good definition of evil, in a nutshell: privation or perversion of the good.] All our words for evil make this plain: the New Testament word for sin (Greek hamartia) presupposes a target that’s been missed; deviation presupposes a way (Latin via) from which we’ve departed; injustice presupposes justice; etc. So let’s ask, who’s got the worse problem, the theist or the atheist? Start with the theist. God is the source of all being and purpose. Given God’s existence, what sense does it make to deny God’s goodness? None . . . . The problem of evil still confronts theists, though not as a logical or philosophical problem, but instead as a psychological and existential one [as was addressed here at 101 level] . . . . The problem of good as it faces the atheist is this: nature, which is nuts-and-bolts reality for the atheist, has no values and thus can offer no grounding for good and evil. As nineteenth century freethinker Robert Green Ingersoll used to say, “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments. There are consequences.” More recently, Richard Dawkins made the same point: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” ["Prepared Remarks for the Dembski-Hitchens Debate," Uncommon Descent Blog, Nov 22, 2010]
As for the attempt to suggest that materialism -- especially evolutionary materialism duly dressed up in the holy lab coat -- is not a worldview (one that in the name of "science" seeks to present itself as THE rational, intelligent and informed account of reality from hydrogen to humans by chance and blind necessity), the attempt simply manages to reveal just how deep the problem is. G'day, KFkairosfocus_{March 1, 2012
March
03
Mar
1
01
2012
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Re: post 89 From the materials linked to, and then linked to from there, I cannot grasp what the "problem of good" refers to--whether for atheists or anyone else.LarTanner_{March 1, 2012
March
03
Mar
1
01
2012
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

"As in, we have no worldview foundational IS that can objectively ground OUGHT (even while we rage against real and imagined faults of others . . .), so we try to turn the issue around. Ought must be the problem." Not quite. What I actually said was that materialism is not a worldview foundation. That does not mean no other worldviews are available that provide a workable ground for OUGHT. But this is, in fact, a separate matter from the one raised in the OP. That matter has been resolved. I love Plato and the cave analogy. I see it in play quite often when I read these forums.LarTanner_{March 1, 2012
March
03
Mar
1
01
2012
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

PS: Cf newer post here, on the problem of good.kairosfocus_{March 1, 2012
March
03
Mar
1
01
2012
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

F/N: Inadvertently revealing dept -- both on the problem and failing to do homework since Plato in The Laws Bk X and a lot of more recent history:
LT: Why should materialism be obligated to objectively verify morality? I understand your larger concerns, but I fail to see why you think it’s a problem that materialism specifically is amoral. If we have a viewpoint that alleges or strives to be descriptive, then it would be a failing for it to be prescriptive . . .
As in, we have no worldview foundational IS that can objectively ground OUGHT (even while we rage against real and imagined faults of others . . .), so we try to turn the issue around. Ought must be the problem. And, what you see looming out of the mists is nihilism. Plato, in The Laws, Bk X:
Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny. )] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them . . .
As in, from Alcibiades to today, nihilism -- which should put us on serious notice! -- has always been the skeleton in materialism's closet. KFkairosfocus_{March 1, 2012
March
03
Mar
1
01
2012
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

Hi Barb,
We humans make rules and laws that specifically target behavior; apes and other animals do not.
I'm not so sure about that. It might be interesting to ask someone who's studied chimps as to what happens if one chimp rapes another - but I have heard before from primatologists that in such cases the rapist will at least get a good pummeling from the other chimps and likely be excluded from the group (resulting in likely death). If we were talking about frogs I'd probably chalk it up to instinct, but in the case of chimps I think empathy and reason are at play.
If we are genetically related, then how is it that we are more moral as a species than they are?
Because we have more developed brains - we're smarter, more reasonable, and have developed a higher degree of empathy.
Survival of the fittest. We exist to procreate and spread our selfish genes. That is the underlying principle behind Darwinian evolution.
We DO procreate and spread our genes, but I wouldn't say that "we exist" to do so (although we exist BECAUSE we do so).
Then why does a theory that tells us nothing the underlying principle behind all of biology? Shouldn’t it describe the way life works, operates, and changes?
I didn't say it "tells us nothing", I said it doesn't tell us to DO anything. As I said, gravity tells us what will happen if I knock my monitor over - but that isn't a command to do so. If we only allow those with the hairiest knuckles to breed, humans will have hairier knuckles in a few generations - but that isn't a command for us to do so. And it isn't much more helpful in answering questions about morality than a falling monitor.
If rape is a product of evolution, and evolution is how we got here then why do we have rules against it? It’s a part of the natural world. Nobody should be punished for rape. That is the only logical conclusion to your comment. Murder might be common, but putting self-defense aside, why do we have rules that make it illegal. If it’s natural, it should be tolerated. Shouldn’t it? Or should human society continue to punish murderers by putting them in jail?
I don't equate 'natural' with 'good' or 'legal'. It's kinda hard for me to see how murder isn't 'natural' - killing exists throughout the natural world, and has been in every human society, and for as long as history has records. Compare that to riding a bike... that's about as unnatural as it gets. It's an artificial contraption that exists no where in nature, is in relatively few human societies, and only recently. Which is more natural? But, to me, that's completely irrelevant to the question of what should be legal.
Those rules would emanate from a source that is considered to be omniscient, righteous, and powerful. That would allow for a basis to determine what is good and what is bad. If God is considered to be the ultimate standard of good—which is how most religions paint him—then that is where moral objectivity would come in.
Saying "ultimate standard of good" just seems like another way of saying "objective". I do agree that if God exists, there may certainly be good reasons to follow his rules.goodusername_{February 29, 2012
February
02
Feb
29
29
2012
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Hi Shogun,
I fail to understand your reasoning here, why aren’t God’s rules objective?
I'm not necessarily saying that God's rules aren't objective. Actually, it's never been clear to me what that even means in the case of morality. I understand what it means to say that it's an objective fact that the moon is larger than a breadbox, or that 2 + 2 = 4, but when it comes to morality - as strongly as I feel that some things are immoral (e.g. rape) - I don't know what it even really means to say that it's "objectively" wrong. Everything else that's objective doesn't depend on God's existence. If it's somehow discovered that God doesn't exist, that doesn't change the fact that the moon is larger than a breadbox. I sometimes wonder if people say that morality is objective cause they feel it gives it more "oomph".
I believe the main reason why God’s moral rules are objective is because we are talking about a source that transcends humans and all their subjectivity. If two persons get into a dispute wouldn’t a third party be the best solution to objectively settle their dispute? So think of God as the ultimate “third party” for all of humanity. What could be more objective than that?
I think you may be conflating two separate meanings of 'objective', or at least using "objective morality" different than how most people mean it. At least from just about every other discussion on this topic I've been in and have seen, they have meant 'objective' as in 'real' or at least independent of the mind, e.g. the existence of a rock is "objective", while whether the rock is 'pretty' or not is 'subjective'. You seem to be using a closely related but separate definition of 'objective', that of 'impartial' or 'unbiased'. For example, let's say a soup competition is going on between two cooks and there's a dispute as to who won the competition - maybe the cooks don't trust the judges. So they decide to ask a random passer-by to taste the two soups and decide which is better. And they decide that whichever soup this 'objective' 3rd party taster picks will be the winner. In this case, he's objective in the sense of being impartial or unbiased. Indeed, he's unbiased in the sense of having no clue of what's going on. He doesn't know the contestants, doesn't know what's at stake, and may not even know that there's a competition. Let's say he picks soup 'A' - It can hardly be claimed that soup 'A' is now 'objectively' better. If a second person walks by and says instead that soup 'B' is better,we should hardly look at him as if he just claimed that a rock on the ground doesn't exist, or that 2 + 2 = 7. He's not 'objectively' wrong. In fact, in both case, we'd say (assuming that they don't know one of the cooks, or are being paid to pick a particular soup) that they each have 'objective opinions'. But if we use the word 'objective' as it's usually meant in the discussion of morality, an "objective opinion" would be an oxymoron.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be implying that divine moral rules can also be explained by materialism in terms of practicality.
No, I personally don't use the argument of practicality. I just threw that in at the end since it is sometimes used (and I think I saw it used somewhere in this thread). I believe empathy and reason are the primary basis of morality. My point was just that, IMO, the basis of morality is the same for BOTH materialists and Christians and other non-materialists alike. Why follow God's rules? I presume it's because you believe that it's the best thing for you (i.e. it's reasonable) and not just for you, but for others as well (empathy). And, yes, for those that believe morality is based on practicality, they can probably find practical reasons to follow God's rules (e.g. staying out of Hell).goodusername_{February 29, 2012
February
02
Feb
29
29
2012
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

“But I wouldn’t say that apes act purely on instinct. I believe apes have SOME ability to empathize and reason, so that’s why I don’t think it’s such an easy question as to whether an ape can be ‘immoral’ or not.”
That is a good point, considering the famous incident where a small boy fell into the gorilla enclosure at a zoo and a female gorilla held him without hurting him. It’s possible that apes understand what we call empathy. But does that mean that they understand love, honor, and revenge as well?
“But, then, we have this same issue even with humans at times. Such as when trying to decide if someone is mentally fit for trial. How impaired does someone’s ability to reason and empathize have to be before we shouldn’t try them for a crime? Not an easy answer IMO.”
With humans, a basic psychiatric evaluation would determine fitness for trial. The underlying issue is the profound difference between human morality and animal morality. We humans make rules and laws that specifically target behavior; apes and other animals do not.
“The OP asked if it is morally wrong for an ape to rape. If we assume the answer is ‘no’, I would say the answer is because of an ape’s limited ability (relative to humans) to reason and empathize. I don’t believe the answer has anything to do with whether an ape is 98% similar genetically to a human or not. And as a point of reference I showed that there are people – 100% human genetically – that we don’t hold morally responsible for their actions. If apes were 0% genetically similar to humans – but had the same ability to reason and empathize – we may very well hold them as morally responsible as any human. The genetic relatedness has nothing to do with it.”
However, you still miss the point: animals do not have rules, ordinances, and laws that govern their behavior. They do not place other animals in jail and test them for mental fitness before putting them on trial. If we are genetically related, then how is it that we are more moral as a species than they are?
“The question of whether an act is immoral or not, IMO, is linked to whether we can hold whoever committed the act morally responsible. How would you answer the question “Is is morally wrong for someone who is highly mentally impaired (someone who would not be judged to be fit for trial) to rape?”
Yes, it is morally wrong. Rape is always morally wrong, whether it is committed by a 10-year-old or a 50-year-old. Are there circumstances under which rape would not be considered morally wrong? If so, what are they? .
“How does evolution NOT allow for empathy?”
Survival of the fittest. We exist to procreate and spread our selfish genes. That is the underlying principle behind Darwinian evolution.
“I don’t see what they have to do with each other. Evolution doesn’t say we should kill the ‘weak’, or let the weak perish, any more than gravity says I should knock my monitor to the floor. Evolution doesn’t ‘tell’ us to do anything.”
Then why does a theory that tells us nothing the underlying principle behind all of biology? Shouldn’t it describe the way life works, operates, and changes?
“Rape may be a product of evolution but I personally have strong doubts (I don’t think there’s been any society where any sizable proportion of the population was a product of rape, and so I don’t think rapists have ever left sufficient offspring) – but even it is, so what?”
If rape is a product of evolution, and evolution is how we got here then why do we have rules against it? It’s a part of the natural world. Nobody should be punished for rape. That is the only logical conclusion to your comment.
“I don’t think that’s an argument for tolerating rape. Murder may also be ‘natural’ – it’s certainly common enough, in every society, and throughout history – but even if it is, I don’t think that’s any kind of argument in its favor morally.”
Murder might be common, but putting self-defense aside, why do we have rules that make it illegal. If it’s natural, it should be tolerated. Shouldn’t it? Or should human society continue to punish murderers by putting them in jail?
“I’m not sure how God’s existence would make morality objective. Assuming there is a God, and has rules for us, what about those rules would be morally objective?”
Those rules would emanate from a source that is considered to be omniscient, righteous, and powerful. That would allow for a basis to determine what is good and what is bad. If God is considered to be the ultimate standard of good—which is how most religions paint him—then that is where moral objectivity would come in.
“Of course, that’s not to say that there’s aren’t good reasons to follow the rules – but I would argue that those reasons are also based on empathy and reason. One may argue that by following those rules that it would be best for humanity (i.e such rules will be the most reasonable) and limit human suffering (empathy) and keep us from, perhaps, going to Hell (and so there are also practical reasons for following the rules).”
The point is, though: if murder and rape are part of the natural world as described by evolutionary processes including natural selection, then why make laws against them? What makes these behaviors immoral?Barb_{February 29, 2012
February
02
Feb
29
29
2012
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Why on materialist grounds are human women privileged to rule their own bodies and not chimp females? After all, materialists insist they are 98% the same; what in that 2% makes the difference?
Did you read the part which you overwrote with your Tannoy message? It was an answer to your question (phrased as a question itself). We don't judge a toddler the same way we judge his parents, though the DNA is very similar - even more similar than the DNA of a chimp compared with some human being. We judge behaviour and capabilities.
DiEb_{February 29, 2012
February
02
Feb
29
29
2012
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Shogun, "Yes materialism is amoral, and this is the root of the problem. Even if it permits morality it just fails to objectively verify it." Why should materialism be obligated to objectively verify morality? I understand your larger concerns, but I fail to see why you think it's a problem that materialism specifically is amoral. If we have a viewpoint that alleges or strives to be descriptive, then it would be a failing for it to be prescriptive. I think I've said everything that interests me on this topic, but I do want to question you on one statement of fact. You say: "From a theistic perspective, rape is objectively wrong in all cases." This statement is false, as far as I can tell. Several theistic perspectives have either explicitly or implicitly tolerated rape in certain situations. I have no knowledge of rape in any theistic culture being a virtue specifically, but to say it is objectively wrong in all cases ignores that in some historical times and circumstances rape (say of a slave or a person in a conquered culture) has been accepted.LarTanner_{February 29, 2012
February
02
Feb
29
29
2012
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

goodusername: "I’m not sure how God’s existence would make morality objective. Assuming there is a God, and has rules for us, what about those rules would be morally objective? Of course, that’s not to say that there’s aren’t good reasons to follow the rules – but I would argue that those reasons are also based on empathy and reason. One may argue that by following those rules that it would be best for humanity (i.e such rules will be the most reasonable) and limit human suffering (empathy) and keep us from, perhaps, going to Hell (and so there are also practical reasons for following the rules)." I fail to understand your reasoning here, why aren't God's rules objective? A key premise of the moral argument for the existence of God is that God is the only source of objective morality, I thought this should be crystal clear by now! I believe the main reason why God's moral rules are objective is because we are talking about a source that transcends humans and all their subjectivity. If two persons get into a dispute wouldn't a third party be the best solution to objectively settle their dispute? So think of God as the ultimate "third party" for all of humanity. What could be more objective than that? Now if there were multiple gods, then you could question the objectivity of their rules because different gods would entail different personalities and opinions which adds a layer of subjectivity to their commands. So I think polytheism fails to establish absolute objective morality. But monotheism is as absolute as it can get since there is only one transcendent source. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that divine moral rules can also be explained by materialism in terms of practicality. But I beg to differ, there are cases where taking a moral decision may go against materialist practicality that limit morality to pretty much social consensus and the impact on our well being. For example, if I was a ruler who decrees a law to put an end to slavery in a society where slavery is a very common practice, wouldn't I be going against materialist practicality by putting a stop to low-paid (or rather unpaid) workers that make up a significant chunk of the workforce? Wouldn't it be damaging to the economy especially if the society heavily relied on slaves to get things done? And isn't it more practical for an advanced nation to conquer an undeveloped nation and use their people and resources to advance their own technology? Wouldn't that help introduce technological benefits to the undeveloped nation? But how do we deem the act of a greedy invasion immoral from a materialist standpoint? Isn't it also more practical from a materialist socio biological perspective to implement eugenics and establish a society of genetic discrimination that would ultimately lead to an improvement in the evolution of a superior human genome for the future? But why is the act of sterilizing or eliminating the genetically inferior immoral? Even in the case of rape which is the main topic here, there can still be cases where materialism makes rape seem normal, or even more practical if the rapists get more reproductive success than the non rapists. Given enough time it might even become a norm in a society driven my materialism. The point should be clear now, your reasoning fails in cases where empathy and compassion morally supersede materialist practicality. And this can only be accomplished by securing a solid and unifying understanding that all human beings have inalienable God-given rights. And this is what materialism cannot deliver because there are cases were practicality outweighs the empathy for the rights of others. And even if God's rules provide some practical advantage, so what? that does nothing to downplay their objectivity. I know that this post was mostly a side topic, but my point is that regardless of how think about it, God is the ONLY source of objective morality.Shogun_{February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT}

LarTanner: "Maybe, but the point is that materialism is amoral. It is not a basis for morality, yet it does not preclude morality either" Yes materialism is amoral, and this is the root of the problem. Even if it permits morality it just fails to objectively verify it. What good is morality if we take it to be a self-imposed illusion as opposed to intrinsic & objective values to abide by? Thank God that materialists only pay lip service to their beliefs otherwise living in such a world is unimaginable. "In any event, the questions of the OP have been answered: Do materialists believe rape is wrong? yes." Yes I'm aware that it's been answered, but inadequately justified. I agree that the wording of the question may not be the best since we are not interested in your opinions, but rather in your objective justification for saying that rape is wrong. In my previous post I asked a question: what if serial rapists had more reproductive success than non rapists in some early stage of hominid evolution? From a materialist perspective, wouldn't rape end up evolving as a norm? And what if a futuristic hardcore eugenic society finds a woman to have favourable qualities that must be passed on, so they decide to force her to have sex with a man whether she likes it or not. In this case not only is there a social consensus about this decision, but they are also positively contributing to the biological evolution of humanity. So they can argue that the materialist greater good outweighs any delusional feelings of empathy or other social constructs dubbed as morality. I don't think these are peripheral questions since they still deal with the moral framework with regards to rape. From a theistic perspective, rape is objectively wrong in all cases. But I don't think we can say the same about materialism. With regards to morality and its objectivity, theism is inherently good but must be distorted to justify the evil acts of some extremists. On the other hand, materialism seems to be inherently bad or morally inadequate and so it must be distorted to look good by its followers. This is a critical difference between theism and materialism.Shogun_{February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

Why on materialist grounds are human women privileged to rule their own bodies and not chimp females? After all, materialists insist they are 98% the same; what in that 2% makes the difference?
Because "we are living in a material world and they are just material girls"? Hey look, Madonna was good for something after all...Joe_{February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

Hi Barb,
If we claim that animals have no claims to morality and act on instinct, then that is fine but we then cannot move the goalposts and claim that humans are simply higher animals and somehow evolved morality.
But I wouldn't say that apes act purely on instinct. I believe apes have SOME ability to empathize and reason, so that's why I don't think it's such an easy question as to whether an ape can be 'immoral' or not. But, then, we have this same issue even with humans at times. Such as when trying to decide if someone is mentally fit for trial. How impaired does someone's ability to reason and empathize have to be before we shouldn't try them for a crime? Not an easy answer IMO.
That is not the point of the OP. The point is to verify whether rape is morally wrong. We are not discussing mental impairment here. We are talking about normal human beings and apes.
The OP asked if it is morally wrong for an ape to rape. If we assume the answer is 'no', I would say the answer is because of an ape's limited ability (relative to humans) to reason and empathize. I don't believe the answer has anything to do with whether an ape is 98% similar genetically to a human or not. And as a point of reference I showed that there are people - 100% human genetically - that we don't hold morally responsible for their actions. If apes were 0% genetically similar to humans - but had the same ability to reason and empathize - we may very well hold them as morally responsible as any human. The genetic relatedness has nothing to do with it. The question of whether an act is immoral or not, IMO, is linked to whether we can hold whoever committed the act morally responsible. How would you answer the question "Is is morally wrong for someone who is highly mentally impaired (someone who would not be judged to be fit for trial) to rape?"
There is no reason to suspect that mentally impaired people cannot understand the basics of ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Presumably someone taught them which behavior is which and did not leave them to their own devices.
It depends how mentally impaired. If someone is mentally impaired - but is deemed capable of understanding the basics of good and bad - then they are typically judged fit to stand trial.
The basis for morality would be the word of God, if the person defending morality is a Christian. Empathy is a good basis for morality, but how does evolution with its ‘survival of the fittest’ selective processes allow for empathy? If the weak perish, then so be it. Nothing good or bad about that, it’s just nature. Right?
How does evolution NOT allow for empathy? I don't see what they have to do with each other. Evolution doesn't say we should kill the 'weak', or let the weak perish, any more than gravity says I should knock my monitor to the floor. Evolution doesn't 'tell' us to do anything.
There is a book that I’ve brought up several times here: ‘The Natural History of Rape” which argues that rape is a natural part of the world and is supported by evolutionary biology. I have yet to see any person on this site defend this book and claim that rape is perfectly normal.
Rape may be a product of evolution but I personally have strong doubts (I don't think there's been any society where any sizable proportion of the population was a product of rape, and so I don't think rapists have ever left sufficient offspring) - but even it is, so what? I don't think that's an argument for tolerating rape. Murder may also be 'natural' - it's certainly common enough, in every society, and throughout history - but even if it is, I don't think that's any kind of argument in its favor morally.
And if there is a God, then there is an objective basis for morality, which would supercede human empathy and reason.
I'm not sure how God's existence would make morality objective. Assuming there is a God, and has rules for us, what about those rules would be morally objective? Of course, that's not to say that there's aren't good reasons to follow the rules - but I would argue that those reasons are also based on empathy and reason. One may argue that by following those rules that it would be best for humanity (i.e such rules will be the most reasonable) and limit human suffering (empathy) and keep us from, perhaps, going to Hell (and so there are also practical reasons for following the rules).goodusername_{February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

Why on materialist grounds are human women privileged to rule their own bodies and not chimp females? After all, materialists insist they are 98% the same; what in that 2% makes the difference?
Barry, perhaps you could answer my question: UD Editor: Nope, not until you answer mine.DiEb_{February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

In a materialistic world one could argue that there isn't any rape- it would be selfish gene reproduction. But I do have a question- my daughter's rabbit makes it with her stuffed animals, yup without their consent. Is that rape? He tries to do her dog too, but she won't have any of that.Joe_{February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

A suggestion: since it takes maybe five to ten minutes to set up a new blog or forum, perhaps those who wish to discuss significantly tangential issues could do so and in responding to the main issue, footnote that they wish to address an incidental issue, elsewhere, as linked. Of course, cultivating civility will be a significant challenge, given what has been going on. (For instance after over a hundred harassing and in some cases rude or obscene remarks by a commenter who has threatened my family, for now I have closed off comments at my personal blog.) KFkairosfocus_{February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Barry, I have enough of you snipping my posts. fG UD Editor: Then stop dodging the question and trying to hijack the thread by changing the subject. Listen, if you can't answer the question just admit it. Or you can go away. I'm OK with either.faded_Glory_{February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

FG: "The reason human rape is considered wrong these days is that the right of a person to rule over their own body has been extended to all humans including women." That is a conclusion FG, not an argument. Do you have an argument to support your conclusion. Why on materialist grounds are human women privileged to rule their own bodies and not chimp females? After all, materialists insist they are 98% the same; what in that 2% makes the difference?Barry Arrington_{February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Goodusername writes,
“Can an ape be immoral? I’m not sure. I suppose that the degree to which we can judge the morality of any creature is commensurate with the ability of the creature to make moral judgments. Perhaps an ape can be morally culpable to some degree, but not as much as a normal human.”
I agree in principle with what you’re saying here, but bear in mind that materialists hold that humans are nothing more than evolved apes (or, if you prefer, ape-like creatures/primates). If we claim that animals have no claims to morality and act on instinct, then that is fine but we then cannot move the goalposts and claim that humans are simply higher animals and somehow evolved morality. Either morality exists because it was hardwired into humans who are separate and distinct from animals as (created/designed) organisms or it did not.
“I say a “normal” human, because some humans are likewise limited in the ability to make moral judgements.”
Is this because their consciences excuse their behavior?
“ If a human has a high degree of mental impairment – perhaps from birth or a brain injury – and is severely limited in the ability to empathize and reason, and that person rapes someone – how morally culpable is the person?”
That is not the point of the OP. The point is to verify whether rape is morally wrong. We are not discussing mental impairment here. We are talking about normal human beings and apes. And even if a mentally impaired individual did commit a crime, he or she would certainly be sent to a psychiatric facility for a period of time. There is no reason to suspect that mentally impaired people cannot understand the basics of ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Presumably someone taught them which behavior is which and did not leave them to their own devices.
“And that brings up the basis for morality – I would say it’s empathy and reason. I suppose from what some are saying here, that some would argue that the basis of morality would be the ability to… theologize?”
The basis for morality would be the word of God, if the person defending morality is a Christian. Empathy is a good basis for morality, but how does evolution with its ‘survival of the fittest’ selective processes allow for empathy? If the weak perish, then so be it. Nothing good or bad about that, it’s just nature. Right? Reason is also a good basis for morality. However, human beings have a strong tendency to throw reason and logic out the window when dealing with highly emotional situations, such as the aftermath of rape or any other crime.
“I feel a moral repugnance at the thought of rape – and I certainly would not want to live in any society that tolerates such a thing. How does God’s existence or non-existence affect the morality of rape?”
There is a book that I’ve brought up several times here: ‘The Natural History of Rape” which argues that rape is a natural part of the world and is supported by evolutionary biology. I have yet to see any person on this site defend this book and claim that rape is perfectly normal. And if there is a God, then there is an objective basis for morality, which would supercede human empathy and reason.Barb_{February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Barry said: "The question for the hundredth time is: Why does a materialist recognize the personhood of a human female and not a chimp female? What in that 2% difference in genes accounts for the difference in treatment??????" That wasn't the question, not even for the first time let alone for the hundredth. You didn't even use the word personhood until I introduced it. The question you asked is: "please explain why on the materialist view it is not wrong for a hairy ape to force a female to have sex with him, but it is wrong for a hairless ape to force a female to have sex with him." To which my answer is: "The reason human rape is considered wrong these days is that the right of a person to rule over their own body has been extended to all humans including women. If that isn’t clear enough, I can point out that personhood is conferred on members of our species but doesn’t extend to other species." fGfaded_Glory_{February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Shogun, "Generally, materialists seem to be satisfied in explaining away morality through sociobiological evolution." Maybe, but the point is that materialism is amoral. It is not a basis for morality, yet it does not preclude morality either. In any event, the questions of the OP have been answered: Do materialists believe rape is wrong? yes. Is it morally wrong for the male chimp to force the female chimp to have sex with him against her will? I answered "yes" in comment 40 and explained why. However, I explained there and in comment 66 that our view of moral chimp behavior is entirely separate from our view of moral human behavior. If the point of the OP is that materialists are inconsistent to give chimps a free pass on rape but not humans, then that point has been demonstrated false because of (1) materialism's neutrality w/r/t morality and (2) the difference--already mentioned a few times--between human assessment of its own species versus other species. Other questions, such as objective morality, are peripheral to the topic introduced in the OP, and so should be dealt with separately. In post 40, I suggested this question as a potential OP: "To materialists: Since you do not base your moral values on materialism, on what do you base them?"LarTanner_{February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

Generally, materialists seem to be satisfied in explaining away morality through sociobiological evolution. But such a definition is highly problematic for two main reasons: 1. Whether you attribute morality to social constructs, cognitive development, cultural norms, memes, or whatever else you like, none of these cases can secure an objective moral ground. So morality remains a subjective trend that humanity came up with, an illusion and nothing more than that. Those who commit rape are simply acting out of fashion. From a materialist perspective, if serial rapists had more reproductive success at the beginning of humanity's evolution due to their ability to acquire more mates than the non rapist, wouldn't rape end up evolving into a norm? 2. While social explanations for morality might work in some cases, they ultimately face a major dilemma when the social consensus decides to endorse evil. Consider the ancient Canaanites where it was customary to sacrifice children, or the medieval societies and their witch hunts, or the Nazis persecution of minorities. What if Hitler won the war and the Nazis continued their policy of eugenics up until today. What would the likes of Dawkins and his materialist friends say to condemn it? Afterall, not only is it agreed upon by social consensus, but also the sterilization or elimination of the sick, crippled, and those deemed genetically inferior would contribute to our sociobiological evolutionary well being on the long run. So what excuse do the materialists have to feel pity for the genetically inferior who are deemed unfit to continue? And how would they justify it objectively, and I stress OBJECTIVELY.Shogun_{February 28, 2012
February
02
Feb
28
28
2012
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

Can an ape be immoral? I’m not sure. I suppose that the degree to which we can judge the morality of any creature is commensurate with the ability of the creature to make moral judgments. Perhaps an ape can be morally culpable to some degree, but not as much as a normal human. I say a “normal” human, because some humans are likewise limited in the ability to make moral judgements. If a human has a high degree of mental impairment – perhaps from birth or a brain injury - and is severely limited in the ability to empathize and reason, and that person rapes someone – how morally culpable is the person? And that brings up the basis for morality – I would say it’s empathy and reason. I suppose from what some are saying here, that some would argue that the basis of morality would be the ability to… theologize? I feel a moral repugnance at the thought of rape – and I certainly would not want to live in any society that tolerates such a thing. How does God’s existence or non-existence affect the morality of rape?goodusername_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

But there are some things that should not be done for simple practical reasons.
So, rape is wrong because it is impractical? Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor.Barb_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

LarTanner said:
I think it is broadly true that materialists base their moral expectations on learned and reasoned ideas of human-specific “good” in human-dominated societies.
Learned? OK. But reasoned? Instead of asserting the ideas are reasoned, why not just share the reasons? Isn't that what we are trying to get to?Phinehas_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply