Leftism as Secular Religion

[seer]

What I wrote regarding life at the biological level is a fact. The strictly biological purpose of any living organism [be it a butterfly, a cat, or one of the owners of a Christian internet website] is to survive long enough to breed.

So rape could be perfectly moral as long as one spreads his seed...

Human rape: An evolutionary analysis

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...62309583900274


A Natural History of Rape

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Natural_History_of_Rape

[seer]

What I wrote regarding life at the biological level is a fact. The strictly biological purpose of any living organism [be it a butterfly, a cat, or one of the owners of a Christian internet website] is to survive long enough to breed.

So rape could be perfectly moral as long as one spreads his seed...

Human rape: An evolutionary analysis

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...62309583900274


A Natural History of Rape

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Natural_History_of_Rape

[seer]

I qualified my remarks with the phrase "at the biological level" and that holds true. At the biological level the purpose of any living organism is to procreate and pass on its genes. Nothing else, at that level, matters.

If I follow that logic rape would be a perfectly valid option.

[seer]

Not at all. It's a fact of existence - get used to it.

If I follow your logic on reproduction rape would certainly be a viable option.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If I follow your logic on reproduction rape would certainly be a viable option.

Why? The concept of rape is a human construct and includes some notion of morality. I was not referring to human societies but to the strictly biological.

One of the distinctions separating humans from other animals is that humans are, at least as far as we are aware, a species that is capable of ethical behaviour. That is one of the main differences between human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom and our concept of morality [as in mores developed by culture] explains how morality differs between different human societies. In other words, what may be deemed "moral" by one human society may be deemed "immoral" by another human society.

Animals have no such concepts. Humans tend to anthropomorphise animal behaviour [just ask anyone who has pets]. However, animal behaviours, again as far as we can deduce, come from instinct and not rational deliberations that are developed over periods of time nor do animals have cultures [as we define the term]; although many animals live in complex social groups.

Hence in strictly biological terms what we term "rape" may produce reproductive benefits for those animals involved. We also know that many male animals will kill the offspring of another male in order to bring the female back into oestrus. The behaviours of dolphins [another highly intelligent mammal] appears to include what we would describe as rape, infanticide, and, on occasion, incest.

However, for human cultures, rape is generally deemed to be immoral, except, as often occurs during conflicts where it can be used as a means of humiliation and/or the exercising of power. The latter is often the motivation behind rape in civilian cases.

That human societies even have a concept of "rape" as well as the fact that the assault does tragically occur within our various cultures would indicate that for many men it is indeed a "viable option".

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If I follow your logic on reproduction rape would certainly be a viable option.

I have just noticed your two duplicate posts! I had similar problems a day or so ago!

[seer]

Why? The concept of rape is a human construct and includes some notion of morality. I was not referring to human societies but to the strictly biological.

Either biological reproduction and survival are the primary goals or not. And if that is true rape is a perfectly acceptable option. Subjective ethical considerations are secondary.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Either biological reproduction and survival are the primary goals or not. And if that is true rape is a perfectly acceptable option. Subjective ethical considerations are secondary.

At the biological level reproduction and survival are the primary goals.

You are confusing biological facts with human constructs of morality. There is no morality at the biological level.

[seer]

At the biological level reproduction and survival are the primary goals.

You are confusing biological facts with human constructs of morality. There is no morality at the biological level.

No duh! That is why survival is primary - ethics are secondary - so rape is a perfectly acceptable option.

[JimL]

Wasn't sure where to put this. I'm interested in the secular take on it. Where do you find meaning and fulfillment in your life? Let's try to keep things civil; I'm not really looking for debate here.

Source: Dennis Prager

source

© Copyright Original Source

Rightism, as secular religion.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No duh! That is why survival is primary - ethics are secondary - so rape is a perfectly acceptable option.

You are confusing biological imperatives with human constructs [i.e.morality/ethics]. There is no morality at the biological level. That is a fact.

[seer]

You are confusing biological imperatives with human constructs [i.e.morality/ethics]. There is no morality at the biological level. That is a fact.

I'm not confusing anything - "biological imperatives" dominate, subjective ethical considerations are secondary - that is why rape is a perfectly acceptable option, and why moral objections against rape are meaningless.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm not confusing anything - "biological imperatives" dominate, subjective ethical considerations are secondary - that is why rape is a perfectly acceptable option, and why moral objections against rape are meaningless.

At the biological level. However, human societies do not exist entirely at the biological level because we have something that no other animal, as far as we know has, and that is the concept of ethics and morality.

[seer]

At the biological level. However, human societies do not exist entirely at the biological level because we have something that no other animal, as far as we know has, and that is the concept of ethics and morality.

But so what? Ethics and morality take a back seat to biological drives. On tribe destroys another tribe and takes their land and resources and they thrive, and pass on their seed. That is perfectly acceptable. Subjective moral considerations carry no weigh. Biology is key.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But so what? Ethics and morality take a back seat to biological drives.

Not within human societies which require co-operation in order to survive and therefore social cohesion is paramount.

Hence, we generally find that in human societies certain biological impulses are not condoned because such behaviours may strain that social cohesion. Furthermore, all human society has a culture and that culture, and its accepted mores, underpin law codes and/or social codes of what is deemed to be acceptable behaviour within each society.

On tribe destroys another tribe and takes their land and resources and they thrive, and pass on their seed. That is perfectly acceptable. Subjective moral considerations carry no weigh. Biology is key.

You are employing a morally subjective phrase i.e. "perfectly acceptable" which suggests some form of moral position on the behaviour you have outlined. I would also point out that organised warfare is a comparatively recent human phenomenon.

However, at the biological level the behaviour you have described may be a necessary requirement to ensure the survival of one specific group, albeit at the expense of another, and of course individuals from the defeated group may be incorporated into the victorious group.