Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

zenf1 said:
Of course they can, and do. Not necessarily 'murder' but animals will kill each other without good reason.
Click to expand...

That was my first post regarding rape and murder in animals. Notice that I didn't actually introduce the terms and I even pointed out that murder doesn't really apply, so why do you keep coming back to it? Admittedly, I added the 'not necessarily' part on in an edit but only a few seconds after making the post. You really are flogging a dead horse.

Castiel said:
But if you are to associate sociobiological traits with rape then you are opening a bag of worms in relation to how we would treat rape legally and socially...coercisive sex in the animal kingdom may resemble rape, but it is highly controversial to determine rape as a behavioural adaptation akin to coercive sexual behaviour in animals.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about how we'd treat it legally and socially though, we're talking about morality. We weren't always this evolved - when did coercive sex become rape for our species? Just because it's controversial doesn't mean it's incorrect. And given what we now know about the impact it has on the victims, and the fact that there's no imperative to reproduce, I don't think there would be any change to how rape is treated legally or socially.

Castiel said:
Anthropomorphising evolutionary animal socio-biological behaviour adaptations and assuming a validated comparison perhaps?
Click to expand...

Socio-biological behaviour adaptations are the basis of our morals.
 
Last edited:
zenf1 said:
We're not talking about how we'd treat it legally and socially though, we're talking about morality. We weren't always this evolved - when did coercive sex become rape for our species?
Click to expand...

We are though, our social and by association legal definitions of Rape are part of the ethical considerations, one as a predicator, the other as a consequence and they help determine our moral stance in regards to what we consider rape/sexual assault. Coercive sex became rape for our species in the same way as killing under certain criteria became murder or homocide, and within the animal kingdom what might appear as analogous to rape is not necessarily the same.

zenf1 said:
Socio-biological behaviour adaptations are the basis of our morals.
Click to expand...

That is controversial in itself, and justifies why I bought up the points I have.....if you believe that rape evolved as an advantageous behaviour adaptation and is genetically hard wired into a subjects DNA then you have some serious questions to ask on how we deal with rapists and their behaviour, is it criminal or simply their nature? And also challenges traditional reasoning over the causes of rape, what you are suggesting is that rape is simply an alternative reproduction strategy when the subject is unable to reproduce with consent. In the words of Thornhill you are categorising "Rape as being viewed as a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage." Rather than a general term, which has various meanings not all associated with sexual coercion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology
 
Last edited:
ringo747 said:
I'd suggest rather that at best socio-biological adaptions have led to us having a better perception of morality, however, I don't agree that morality itself evolves.
Click to expand...

Where do you think our morality comes from? What about our species 100,000 years ago, do you think they shared our morals?
 
zenf1 said:
Where do you think our morality comes from? What about our species 100,000 years ago, do you think they shared our morals?
Click to expand...

Our ancestors 100,000 years ago are not comparable to modern humans, who gained what is termed Behavioural Modernity around 50,000 years ago. This is what separates us from other hominids and animals (particularly the apes)...and another reason why your reasoning in making human ethical concepts homogenous to animal behaviour is flawed.

I am sure the religious among us will infer some meaning from the first of the two theories regarding Behavioural Modernity and the theory that it was a sudden event. :p
 
Last edited:
zenf1 said:
Where do you think our morality comes from? What about our species 100,000 years ago, do you think they shared our morals?
Click to expand...

I think that if objective moral values and duties exist, then there must be a transcendent basis.

You suggest that morality has evolved. How can we have confidence in this at all given that evolution aims at survival instead of truth?
 
Castiel said:
We are though, our social and by association legal definitions of Rape are part of the ethical considerations, one as a predicator, the other as a consequence and they help determine our moral stance in regards to what we consider rape/sexual assault.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that you need to look at social or legal definitions of rape to determine whether it's morally right or wrong. There are many things which are illegal that have nothing to do with morals and many things which are socially unacceptable which have nothing to do with morals, and there are morally wrong things (arguably) which aren't illegal, or socially unacceptable (depending on who you socialise with). I don't see the relevance.

Castiel said:
Coercive sex became rape for our species in the same way as killing under certain criteria became murder or homocide, and within the animal kingdom what might appear as analogous to rape is not necessarily the same.
Click to expand...

And in what way would that be? Why isn't it the same?

Castiel said:
That is controversial in itself, and justifies why I bought up the points I have.....if you believe that rape evolved as an advantageous behaviour adaptation and is genetically hard wired into a subjects DNA then you have some serious questions to ask on how we deal with rapists and their behaviour, is it criminal or simply their nature? And also challenges traditional reasoning over the causes of rape, what you are suggesting is that rape is simply an alternative reproduction strategy when the subject is unable to reproduce with consent. In the words of Thornhill you are categorising "Rape as being viewed as a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage." Rather than a general term, which has various meanings not all associated with sexual coercion.
Click to expand...

It may be controversial, but that doesn't make it wrong. You could say similar things about children who are sexually abused and then go on to become pedophiles themselves with regard to how they should be treated. And I wouldn't suggest that in today's society that rape is simply an alternative reproduction strategy, but what about 50,000 years ago?
 
ringo747 said:
You suggest that morality has evolved. How can we have confidence in this at all given that evolution aims at survival instead of truth?
Click to expand...

Firstly the word 'evolved' in that sentence isn't relating to to theory of evolution (which is purely a biological process). It just means what we consider moral and immoral has changed, been updated and reconsidered over time.

That being said, don't you think that the fact we generally condone murder as a species is a good thing for our survival? If we just went around murdering each other willy nilly don't you think our species would have died out by now?

Morality isn't about 'truth', it's a framework we construct which we consider best both for our survival as a species and generally what is pleasant (i.e 'The Golden Rule', One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself etc).
 
zenf1 said:
I don't agree that you need to look at social or legal definitions of rape to determine whether it's morally right or wrong. There are many things which are illegal that have nothing to do with morals and many things which are socially unacceptable which have nothing to do with morals, and there are morally wrong things (arguably) which aren't illegal, or socially unacceptable (depending on who you socialise with). I don't see the relevance.
Click to expand...

The relevence in not in determining whether it is morally right or wrong in humans, but whether that is homologous to the animal kingdom.


zenf1 said:
And in what way would that be? Why isn't it the same?
Click to expand...

Because you need to make assumptions on the causes and motivations of animals in assessing their own behaviour from a self aware state.

zenf1 said:
It may be controversial, but that doesn't make it wrong. You could say similar things about children who are sexually abused and then go on to become pedophiles themselves with regard to how they should be treated. And I wouldn't suggest that in today's society that rape is simply an alternative reproduction strategy, but what about 50,000 years ago?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was wrong, I said it opens up serious questions on how we treat rape and rapists within society, it is controversial because it infers that rape is a biological imperative and not a ethical consideration. It also assumes within the Animal Kingdom that if rape is amoral in animals then it is also in humans, if you go down the homologous route that you have. Remember that anthropologists, biologists and zoologist sceptic do not associate the two, prefering to make the distinction that is it apparently coercive, rather than coercive in the same context as we would apply to rape in human society.

If nothing else, What i have said gives you something else to consider when assessing such relative comparisons, particularly in relation to associating human socio-behaviours to animal Socio-biology and how that relates to the comparative evolutionary psychology, if indeed it does at all.
 
Last edited:
estebanrey said:
Firstly the word 'evolved' in that sentence isn't relating to to theory of evolution (which is purely a biological process). It just means what we consider moral and immoral has changed, been updated and reconsidered over time.
Click to expand...

Our understanding and perception of morality can change but the objective truth on whether a given action is right or wrong hasn't in my view.

estebanrey said:
That being said, don't you think that the fact we generally condone murder as a species is a good thing for our survival? If we just went around murdering each other willy nilly don't you think our species would have died out by now?
Click to expand...

Of course.

estebanrey said:
Morality isn't about 'truth', it's a framework we construct which we consider best both for our survival as a species and generally what is pleasant (i.e 'The Golden Rule', One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself etc).
Click to expand...

You are defining what sounds like subjective morality here, which isn't what I am referring to.
 
Jason2 said:
So if morality evolved, that means the things we condemn now could be allowed in hundred years or so? That can't be good.
Click to expand...

That would depend on what changes. The shift in attitudes towards women and homosexuals is good for example.
 
Naffa said:
If you're talking about colonial Western society before the abolition of slavery and the civil rights act, I would agree with you.
Click to expand...

So you don't think that people like Willliam Wilberforce and the Quakers efforts to abolish Slavery were informed by their Christian beliefs? Particularly as Wilberforce specifically cited his newly considered Christian Ethics as being the driving force behind his involvement in the abolition movement, a movement largely motivated by Christian Anglican Evangelicals (and I don't mean the type we see today).
 
RDM said:
That would depend on what changes. The shift in attitudes towards women and homosexuals is good for example.
Click to expand...

The problem is that these attitudes are not alway progressive..for example homosexuality was not an issue for Ancient Greek society (although it still did revolve around a dominant or masculine and a submissive or feminine dynamic), neither was pederasty, again for similar dominant/passive social roles. In Rome, homosexuality was similar in role assignment, but even more so as the term homosexual/heterosexual has no meaning, and leads to significant transliteration issues in the Pauline Epistles relating to Christian attitudes to homosexuality as I have explained at length before.

It is entirely subjective and relative to social attitudes in any given society, rather than absolute concepts of right and wrong.
 
Castiel said:
Because you need to make assumptions on the causes and motivations of animals in assessing their own behaviour from a self aware state.
Click to expand...

Why? If a man rapes a woman, do you need to know the causes and motivations of that man in assessing his behaviour from a self aware state to determine the morality of it? He may well fully believe there was consent even if there wasn't, does that mean it's not rape?

Castiel said:
I didn't say it was wrong, I said it opens up serious questions on how we treat rape and rapists within society, it is controversial because it infers that rape is a biological imperative and not a ethical consideration. It also assumes within the Animal Kingdom that if rape is amoral in animals then it is also in humans, if you go down the homologous route that you have. Remember that anthropologists, biologists and zoologist sceptic do not associate the two, prefering to make the distinction that is it apparently coercive, rather than coercive in the same context as we would apply to rape in human society.
Click to expand...

I think we're established and intelligent enough now as a society to weigh our biological imperatives against our ethical considerations, and because of that, I don't see why there should be any question on how we treat rape or rapists. I never said rape was amoral, but it's possible that our species wouldn't even exist without it. As already said, today's society is very different as there's no imperative to reproduce.

I don't think our morals are derived purely from how we've evolved as a species but I do believe that it has an influence on us, and while animals aren't as advanced as us, they've still been shown to display behaviour which we can consider as moral.

Here's a TED talk on moral behaviour in animals:

http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom