"Rape then, is simply evolution in action. If the bull elk is strong enough to defeat all his rivals then he gets to breed the females"
Evolution is the scientific explanation for the manner in which current life forms evolved from prior forms through differentiation of traits and through the survival of favourable variations. It has nothing to do with "might" per se, nor with "rape". Also, "morality" is a concept of consciousness. It does not apply to the behaviour of elk who only act as their natures dictate.
"BTW natural selection, commonly known as the "survival of the fittest" is axiomatic to evolution"
Again, this is incorrect. There are hundreds of evolutionary papers published daily and they offer a diversity of opinion as to how biology, culture, opportunity and chance intermingle to promote survival. Science is never exhaustive. It is never complete. It is simply a method of continuously approaching a more comprehensive understanding of our world and our lives. In this regard, although the fact of evolution is well-know, still there is only a portion of visible iceberg.
But I have no quarrel with you using "survival of the fittest" as a simplistic view of the matter. I simply fail to see what point you are trying to make regarding survival being immoral. Believing in the fact of evolution no more makes one "immoral" than believing in Bernoulli's principle allows one to drink poison.
If you intended the point that belief in evolution leads to moral corruption or a denial of community or values, then you have failed to justify such an absurdity. In fact, to suggest that Spencer, Darwin, Gould and millions of others are brutes because the Catholic-raised Stalin was a brute is to add injury to insult. These people devoted their lives to science and philosophy and the good of humanity. Unless you have some evidence that these and millions of others are ruthless by virtue of their belief in scientific fact, then perhaps you could either make a different point...or desist from such insulting insinuations.
"There are no moral constraints in nature, why should humans be any different"
There are mainly instincts in most species. But in homo sapiens there is reasoning and choice. What we call our moral code is simply a set of rules devised by trial and error, reasoning and culture, to promote the survival, safety, and well-being of the group or community.
A woman gets raped. This is a hurtful thing for her and she views it as wrong. If the man who raped her does not view it as wrong (as is likely the case) it is because he has little sense of empathy or community. He is a rogue personality...perhaps pschotic or damaged in some other way.
The woman's family and friends however are attached to her by love and empathy and they will also view this rape as morally wrong. Likewise, the community will see it as wrong. It is likely that the family and friends will hurt the rapist back if they catch him, and it will be in a more extreme manner than community "punishment" because they have a much greater emotional and rational concern in the safety and happiness of this person whom they love, and who was hurt by another.
Now enter a stranger to the community to say "What you have failed to do, is to demonstrate why any action should be considered to be either right or wrong based on reason." One can only assume that this stranger is espousing the viewpoint that he himself feels incapable of discerning right or wrong by either reason, empathy, attachment or other forms of self interest and rational survival methods.
You are that stranger, so let me ask you: Are you truly incapable of knowing right from wrong lest you read it in some ancient book and decide to accept it capriciously? What if there is no book? Do you get confused about whether or not it is good when someone is being hurt and suffering in pain? Do you struggle to find some ancient warbling that will clarify the matter for you? Do you feel helpless trying to use reason and empathy to steer a course toward right and decent behaviour?
Do you truly believe then that the ONLY reason that an action is either good or bad is if someone or something SAYS it is? You can comprehend no other manner for assessing your actions or the actions of others?? You can find no basis in reason or empathy to either feel or think that an action is decent or indecent? Without a particular rule book based on ancient tribal leaders, you can find no basis for behaviour--you simply act at random with no means to assess a value to your actons?
OK..if that is the way it is for you then I will take you at your word.
But there have been thousands and thousands of communities throughout history. Every single one of them had a moral code--either simple or refined. Do you understand, Greg? They HAD A MORAL CODE...but they did not have YOUR book...and they did not have YOUR MORAL CODE. Now if morality is not a question of reason and empathy being utilized to the survival, benefit, and well-being of the community, then where do you suggest all these billions of people got their moral code from? If their morality was not relative, then what the Hell was it??
A tribe applauds the killing of a warrior from a rival tribe/family, but they condemn and punish the member who kills within his own family/group--and vice-versa for the other tribe(s). How relative can you get!!
Obviously, the opinions of various groups of people derive from genetic, cultural, and individualized psychological influences. This accounts for the ESTABLISHED FACT that opinions of right and wrong show marked variation between groups and over time. The commonality of interests, needs, and social interdependence accounts for the broad consensus on major issues. We all hurt and suffer in similar manner; we all find relief in similar ways. We all find safety, security, and productive potential by creating familial and community bonds, and in the same manner we overcome loneliness, anomie and so forth.
There has never been any evidence for an objective morality. Indeed the idea is absurd considering that every "moral" decision is dependent upon a unique assessment of an entire range of circumstances within a particular set and setting.
And so it has always been... |
