E, I understand your point, but I think it's irrelevant whether the woman is a sociopath or not. The question was, under the circumstances, would we, the posters on Feelies, think the man was justified in forcing her to procreate against her will?
My position, that he would not be, is largely a practical one, as to reproduce the woman would have to be forced to procreate numerous times, so as to give birth to both boys and girls, who would in turn procreate. Leaving out of the calculation the advisability of such concentration in the genetic material, if the woman was unwilling to do it once, one can only assume she'd be even more unwilling to do it more than once, so she would have to be enslaved. That's really the question, isn't it?
Not whether she's a sociopath or not. Left out of your calculation are some possibilities. Perhaps prior to the great catastrophe, she had been diagnosed with an illness or condition so grave that she had been advised never to procreate, so that she would be risking her life if she did. You might think it was nobler of her to give it a try, and selfish to want to preserve her own life, but that doesn't make her a sociopath.
Or, possibly, the man who survived was the one who was responsible for the great catastrophe, maybe a mad scientist who invented a disease which wiped out the entire human race but himself, who had an antidote, and this woman, whom he chose to begin the human race again with himself as Adam and this woman as Eve. Under the circumstances, who wouldn't refuse?
Regardless of whether the woman's choice is rational, or irrational, the question is, as I understand it, would the man be justified in enslaving the woman to ensure the continuation of the species? I say no. |
