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

@ bevets at 34. You are of course correct, and it never ceases to amaze me that the vast majority of them seem unable to grasp this rather simple point.Barry Arrington_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Dieb writes: “We put murderers in jail, but respect our local butcher. The first threatens the society (Kant’s Kategorischer Imperativ springs to my mind), the second is a part of the society (vegans may hold a different view).” That’s the spirit Dieb! Good for you. Sadly, you are arguing at cross purposes with yourself. You assert Kant’s categorical imperative (in the original German no less; that certainly makes it sound more impressive). Then you advance a utilitarian consequentialist argument. The problem with this approach is that Kant developed the categorical imperative precisely in opposition to consquentialist arguments. Here is Wikipedia: “Kant expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the popular moral philosophy of his day, believing that it could never surpass the level of hypothetical imperatives: a utilitarian says that murder is wrong because it does not maximize good for the greatest number of people, but this is irrelevant to people who are concerned only with maximizing the positive outcome for themselves. Consequently, Kant argued, hypothetical moral systems cannot persuade moral action or be regarded as bases for moral judgments against others, because the imperatives on which they are based rely too heavily on subjective considerations.” So your utilitarian argument (i.e., it threatens society) fails to establish any sort of grounding for morality. Certainly it does not explain why we treat humans differently from apes. Finally, it assumes its conclusion. When you say rape “threatens” society that is just another way of saying rape is wrong, which is the very question to be determined in the first place. What about your other argument? Kant’s categorical imperative states: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." This is not quite the same as the Golden Rule, but it is pretty much the same concept. Certainly I agree that it is an excellent rule for moral behavior. Yet you have given me absolutely no reason, on materialist grounds, to follow it. And grounding us once again in the OP, you have not yet addressed the question of why a human should consider himself bound by the Golden Rule when we expect no such thing of a chimp. Please, please tell me Died; why does the 2% difference in genes make any moral difference at all, much less all the difference in the world? Again, the question is this: Why should humans follow the Golden Rule when chimps get to follows a rule that says “take whatever you want when you want it”? Barry Arrington_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

bevets: Today I want to argue that if God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God, that is, if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding. We might act in precisely the same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of God, such actions would no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Thus, we cannot truly be good without God. On the other hand, if we do believe that moral values and duties are objective, that provides moral grounds for believing in God. ~ William Lane Craig utidjian: “As a gene carrying member of my species I believe that it is morally wrong for one member of my species to rape another member of my species or any other species.” Barry Arrington: Another dodge. I do not doubt that you believe rape is wrong. Again, the question is, why do you believe human rape is morally wrong and not chimp rape? Theist: Atheist have no basis for prescriptive morality. Atheist: Let me talk about my description of morality.bevets_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

Yes, I do not disagree that materialists believe rape is wrong, but you dodged the question too. Why do we put human rapists in jail when we pretty much ignore chimp rapists? That is the question. Can you answer it?
We put murderers in jail, but respect our local butcher. The first threatens the society (Kant's Kategorischer Imperativ springs to my mind), the second is a part of the society (vegans may hold a different view).DiEb_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

For those keeping score, we have had five materialist responses so far. carlg, NormO, faded_Glory, and utidjian simply dodged the question or tried to change the subject. ThoughtSpark candidly admitted the logic of his worldview leads to the conclusion that rape is not morally wrong. Surely there is some materialist somewhere who will actually try to argue with me, no?Barry Arrington_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

utidjian writes: “As a gene carrying member of my species I believe that it is morally wrong for one member of my species to rape another member of my species or any other species.” Another dodge. I do not doubt that you believe rape is wrong. Again, the question is, why do you believe human rape is morally wrong and not chimp rape?Barry Arrington_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

Dieb writes: “Certainly there are various lines of reasoning to argue why materialists believe that rape is wrong, but there is no doubt that they believe it.” Yes, I do not disagree that materialists believe rape is wrong, but you dodged the question too. Why do we put human rapists in jail when we pretty much ignore chimp rapists? That is the question. Can you answer it?Barry Arrington_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Faded Glory: “To answer the question: materialists in general, as do most people fortunately, consider human rape to be wrong.” But you obviously have not answered the question. You didn’t even address it, much less answer it. In other words, the question makes you uncomfortable, so you dodged it. I will quote the question from the OP: “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.” Do you have an answer to that question other than whining about how it is “tiresome”?Barry Arrington_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Barry, Nick may simply not have seen this article yet. Not as if everyone who comes here enters the site on the home page and peruses every article. As far as your question regarding hairy and hairless apes: For the record I am a hairless (well I have a full head of hair AND a beard... more accurately I am a less hairy ape.) As a gene carrying member of my species I believe that it is morally wrong for one member of my species to rape another member of my species or any other species. For ALL other species than my own I only have a moral objection if they try to rape a member of my species.utidjian_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

FG: Pardon, but, your just above sounds uncommonly like subject switching to move tangentially from red herring to strawman laced with ad hominem to poisoned atmosphere. So, let me restate what has been argued -- that materialists have no worldview foundational IS that can objectively ground OUGHT. Also, kindly note the repeated correction to the strawman distortion above, that Judaeo-Christian theists [the relevant kind] hold that there is an implanted conscience (the candle of the Lord and all that -- remember the often cited snippet from Locke?) that tells us and calls us to the principles of core morality, subject only to willful benumbing. Do you see therefore how we can point out that there is a worldview foundation challenge AND call to duty, confident that regardless of worldview, we have a conscience calling us to the better path? It seems to me that his thread raises a very significant issue, what happens when a crime is defined on violation of a person's consent as well as person, in a world where a dominant worldview undermines the very premise that we have a mind of our own that should be respected? Let's refresh our memory from Provine, Darwin Day, U Tenn 1998:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . .
And, here is Kyle Butt's reply, and yes the example he chose was just what BA has focussed on:
Provine’s . . . [[address] centered on his fifth statement regarding human free will. Prior to delving into the “meat” of his message, however, he noted: “The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them” (Provine, 1998). It is clear then, from Provine’s comments, that he believes naturalistic evolution has no way to produce an “ultimate foundation for ethics.” And it is equally as clear that this sentiment was so apparent to “modern naturalistic evolutionists” that Mr. Provine did not feel it even needed to be defended . . . . [[However, i]f it is true that naturalistic evolution cannot provide an ultimate foundation for determining the difference between actions that are right and ones that are wrong, then the door is wide open for subjective speculation about all human behavior. Working under this assumption (of naturalistic evolution), and knowing the ethical implications of such, Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer co-authored a book titled A Natural History of Rape, published by the MIT Press in 2000. In their preface they state that they “would like to see rape eradicated from human life” (p. xi). A noble thought—to eradicate such a detestable practice. Their self-professed purpose is to educate their readers as to the causes of rape. They feel this education will help their readers understand rape better, and be better equipped to initiate programs that will prevent it more efficiently than the current programs. Yet, as noble as their suggested aim may be, Thornhill and Palmer embark on an impossible task. Since they apply naturalistic, evolutionary thinking to rape, they are forced to say, in essence, that there is really nothing ultimately wrong with the practice (although they do not like it and want to see it eradicated). In the third chapter titled, “Why Do Men Rape?,” the authors note:
The males of most species—including humans—are usually more eager to mate than the females, and this enables females to choose among males who are competing with one another for access to them. But getting chosen is not the only way to gain sexual access to females. In rape, the male circumvents the female’s choice (Thornhill and Palmer, p. 53).
Comparing humans with animal species, the authors view rape as a natural way for males to circumvent the selection process. In fact, they claim: “Human rape arises from men’s evolved machinery for obtaining a high number of mates in an environment where females choose mates” (p. 190, emp. added). They further state that “[e]volutionary theory applies to rape, as it does to other areas of human affairs, on both logical and evidentiary grounds. There is no legitimate scientific reason not to apply evolutionary or ultimate hypotheses to rape” (p. 55). In their proposed “scientific” evolutionary reasons why men rape women, they suggest that in some cases heavy metals such as lead “disrupt psychological adaptations of impulse control,” which may lead to a “higher rate of criminality” (p. 58). They state, “[l]ead may account for certain cases of rape, just as mutations may” (p. 58). Thus, rape may simply be caused when a male of a species is exposed to an excess of some type of heavy metal like lead. The problem with this line of thinking is that it flies in the face of everything humans know about moral and immoral decisions. Furthermore, it transforms a vicious, morally reprehensible activity into something that may occasionally be caused by too much lead in the environment. Such “scientific” explanations for an immoral action like rape are absolutely unsatisfactory. When boiled down to its essence, as Thornhill and Palmer have so well illustrated, naturalistic evolution can never claim that any activity is wrong in an ultimate sense. This being the case, any action that a person chooses to do would be considered just as morally right as any other action, since all human behavior would be the by-product of evolution. Such a quagmire of moral misconception would ultimately lead any society to utter ruin . . . [[Rape and Evolution, Apologetics Press, 2005.]
There is a serious problem, and BA, a lawyer, has put his finger on a particularly revealing case that brings the problem into clear view despite the confusing, choking smoke of burning, laced strawmen. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

This is just another round of always the same tiresome nonsense argument: you can't be moral unless you believe in God. To answer the question: materialists in general, as do most people fortunately, consider human rape to be wrong. These days. There were times when it was ok to rape your prisoners of war and your slaves, and the excuses for that can easily be found in the Bible. 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. Getting to that point has taken quite a while in the teeth of organised opposition from, largely, theists of many colours. Next question: do Bible believers think human rape is wrong? Why? fGfaded_Glory_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT}

It looks like the Darwinists other than ThoughtSpark have been struck dumb. I don't think so - I assume that most of us believe that the question is just a provocation, and utterly malformed. But nevertheless, I will answer the question: Materialists generally believe that rape is wrong. Certainly there are various lines of reasoning to argue why materialists believe that rape is wrong, but there is no doubt that they believe it: there is no movement to promote rape in secular countries, rapists are despised and condemned in agnostic societies, etc.DiEb_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT}

kuartus and c hand, Jack is an internet troll. I will not allow him to hijack this thread. Thank you anyway for your cogent replies. It looks like the Darwinists other than ThoughtSpark have been struck dumb. The fact is, most of them prefer to say nothing (or, like Jack, try to change the subject) when pressed to defend the moral logic of their worldview. Very few of them are like ThoughtSpark, willing candidly to admit the monstrous moral nihilism that worldview entails. Nick Matzke, for example, has been posting here for the last two days. Anyone else notice he won’t touch this thread with a ten foot pole?Barry Arrington_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

ThoughtSpark's honesty is indeed refreshing and something you don't often see. He's not engaging in the moral weaseling of the New Atheists. He takes on the hard honesty of the old atheists like Nietzsche and Sartre. With them you can actually pin down their argument and have a discussion. Trying to argue with a follower of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. is like trying to chase down a greased pig. Entertaining for an audience, but pointless.StuartHarris_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

ThoughtSpark- The social constructs that surrounded Bibi Aisha or a child in a Bangkok brothel are simply different social constructs than with which we find ourselves entangled? If the social constuct permits it, nothing objective can condemn it?c hand_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

TS: FYI, Paul was citing a slogan of his opponents and replying, by pointing out that first not everything is expedient, then highlighting the addictive-destructive nature of relevant wrongful activities that said opponents wanted "freedom" to indulge. On the main topic, the issue is, will as basis for ability to say yes or no. The core crime in rape is violation of person, thus of will, by force or fraud, and it is why statutory rape exists for those deemed too young to consent. So, do we have genuinely free minds? Why or why not, with what implications? KFkairosfocus_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

Good for you ThoughtSpark. As ghastly as your moral view of the world is, at least you are no coward and you’re willing to own the logical consequences of your worldview. I assume you believe the holocaust was an affirmatively good thing because the Germans agreed that it was and no laws were broken.Barry Arrington_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

No, it would not be immoral for a chimp to "rape" another. Just as it is not wrong for a person to rape another person. In fact it is Paul, the greatest "soulwinner" of all that said "everything" is permissible, but not everything is beneficial." The whole concept of morals is a purely social construct, not something a creator has instilled into us. We created morals because we are social animals, and having an agreed upon code of conduct is the only way for us to survive as a group. There are no absolutes. But there are some things that should not be done for simple practical reasons.ThoughtSpark_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

For ian4851...here you go: (Atheist Anthony Cashmore) A belief in free will is akin to religious beliefs […] The reality is, not only do we have no more free will than a fly or a bacterium, in actuality we have no more free will than a bowl of sugar. The laws of nature are uniform throughout, and these laws do not accommodate the concept of free will. as living systems we are nothing more than a bag of chemicals. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4499.full.pdf+htmlBlue_Savannah_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Barry, If you ask questions like this you would be accused by some socio-biologists of committing naturalistic fallacy. "There is no connection here between what is biological or naturally selected and what is morally right or wrong. To assume a connection is to commit what is called the naturalistic fallacy." - Thornhill and Palmer "Modern thinkers emphasize that nature is as nature is period, and that right and wrong in the moral sense derive from humans’ pursuing their interests, not from the facts of nature." - Thornhill and Palmer Very convenient way out, don't you think? Furthermore their answer as to explain why people have evolved to abhor rape: "Rape reduced female reproductive success throughout human evolutionary history because it interfered with their ability to choose their offspring’s father. Because women’s interests are thwarted by rape, so too are the interests of their significant others—that is, of people in general." - Thornhill and Palmer And finally one of the conclusions Thornhill and Palmer make: "We feel that the woman's perspective on rape can be best understood by considering the negative influences of rape on female reproductive success.... It is also highly possible that selection favored the outward manifestations of psychological pain because it communicated the female's strong negative attitude about the rapist to her husband and/or her relatives." You do not get much more convoluted that this. But in all fairness it should be mentioned that not all evolutionary psychologists share this view.inunison_{February 26, 2012
February
02
Feb
26
26
2012
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

This is the problem for materialists. There is no good or evil, right or wrong in anything. This is why my jaw dropped when hitchens his goal was for the freedom of humanity as the all good. How did be come to the conclusion that this freedom was good or evil in his materialistic worldview? No wonder why he lost those debates to Craig. When this worldview is put under the microscope it's chaotic, meaningless end becomes apparent.wallstreeter43_{February 25, 2012
February
02
Feb
25
25
2012
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT}

johnnyb, actually, I think I will stick with my chimp example. Over and over again we hear from Darwinists that chimps and humans share 98% of their genes. I think there are good reasons to doubt that factoid, but I am willing to assume it arguendo for purposes of this post. In fact, it actually serves my purpose. If a Darwinist agrees that the chimp is not morally culpable to force sex on an unwilling female but the human is, I want them to tell me what, exactly, in that 2% accounts for the different result. To the Darwinists: This post has been up several hours. Are you unwilling -- or just unable -- to engage with us? Nick, I know you’ve been here while the post has been up. Why are you refusing to engage?Barry Arrington_{February 25, 2012
February
02
Feb
25
25
2012
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT}

Barry, In other words, why should anyone care about an “advance in culture.” Not to mention, what's an 'advance in culture' again? How do we tell these things from a step backwards in culture? It seems to me that the 'advance' question is just as problematic as the 'morally wrong' question.nullasalus_{February 25, 2012
February
02
Feb
25
25
2012
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

johnnyb - Hens or roosters? Are you blaming the victim?c hand_{February 25, 2012
February
02
Feb
25
25
2012
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Blue_Savannah: please give that link again. (Though I can guess the content.)ian4851_{February 25, 2012
February
02
Feb
25
25
2012
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Especially if the rapist has no choice BUT to rape since he has no more free will than a bowl of sugar (according to materialists) http://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4499.full.pdf+htmlBlue_Savannah_{February 25, 2012
February
02
Feb
25
25
2012
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

Barry - Your post was way too hypothetical. A simpler question would be for hens - their normal mode of breeding is essentially rape. Is that wrong? If it is *not* wrong for hens, what, specifically, makes it wrong for humans, if there is not an objective moral order?johnnyb_{February 25, 2012
February
02
Feb
25
25
2012
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

carlg, why would a materialist pin anything on the concept of "advance in culture," much less make it the foundation for his views on morality? In other words, why should anyone care about an "advance in culture." Barry Arrington_{February 25, 2012
February
02
Feb
25
25
2012
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

Is it morally wrong for the male chimp to force the female chimp to have sex with him against her will? I suggest you ask the female chimp.NormO_{February 25, 2012
February
02
Feb
25
25
2012
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

A darwinian might say that similar is not identical, and that the advance in culture is an emergent properties wherin rught and wrong are not the same for apes.carlg_{February 25, 2012
February
02
Feb
25
25
2012
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply