Jump to content

Welcome to Phylogeny Explorer Project Forum

Welcome to Phylogeny Explorer Project Forum, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be apart of Phylogeny Explorer Project Forum by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.

Sign in to follow this  
brachiosteve

Is rape wrong and does it suggest a personal God?

Recommended Posts

 
 
Lauren Woods to Reasons for Jesus
 

I’ll just leave this here....

Can I ask you what you believe makes rape or murder wrong in the first place? In the animal kingdom it is common practice for animals to have sexual intercourse without the females consent, often times, the male and female fight prior to the male overpowering her and mating with her. And it’s often done to younger females as soon as they come into heat. And of course we know that animals often fight to the death or kill over territory or out of hunger. So if we are just evolved animals then wouldn’t rape and murder be considered part of the natural order of humans sexual reproduction survival instincts and natural selection? Where does the moral idea that rape and murder is wrong come from if there is no God to give it to us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because humans have a moral and we do not live in the dark ages anymore we know that killing humans and rape is wrong. If all animals would know the same reasoning i think we would see the same results as by humans. If we had another species (but can do the same reasoning as us etc) on this planet that was like us but completely different in appearance would we then still consider it rape and murder. What if only we can believe in a God but the other species can’t or have no idea of the concept but do not rape or murder, what then. Its now easy to say because God or is it, where does morality come from then or did we as humans evolve and grew up in all does years. Would we as humans do better if there was another dominant species on this planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Weare Borg:

“Because humans have a moral”

Do we? Based on what? Where did/do we obtain it? How do we measure it or to what can we compare it or go to for authority or arbitration and why do so many differ?

“and we do not live in the dark ages anymore we know that killing humans and rape is wrong.”

So killing and rape was fine 500 years ago and we didn't know it was wrong?

“If all animals would know the same reasoning”

What if people’s or animal's reasoning are different? Who is right or is everything subjective or decided by a vote or current society or religious belief or greed or selfishness or altruism or individual circumstances or philosophy? If I want to hurt you, and you don’t want me to hurt you, who’s decision is used or where do we go to find out? Now or at any time or place?

“i think we would see the same results as by humans. If we had another species (but can do the same reasoning as us etc.) on this planet that was like us but completely different in appearance would we then still consider it rape and murder.”

Are humans different from any other animal or higher/sentient/suffering one? If to force sex or kill is the same across species, then this is something several species did and do. Lions killing other animals and making them suffer just so they can eat it, is done by humans all the time, nd most humans kill/murder intelligent, sentient, suffering animals to eat them when they don’t need to. And murder is worse than rape. Very few animals rape, or need to or want to. Humans tend to do it (in spite of evolution not advocating it specifically) but can be punished for it.

Is human rape wrong? Legally, yes, in SOME countries/circumstances. Which is another way of saying, no, in many countries/circumstances. The countries where rape is permitted tend to be religiously controlled.

Is human rape wrong, morally/ethically? Again, it varies, but on the same religious/non-religious divide.

Is human rape wrong, universally? Well clearly not, if you happen to be religious at least. I know of no law or non-religious country or reason that justifies rape, so if anything, rape is only looked down upon badly, by non-religious people, universally. And yet despite this, those same non-religious people do not have an authority to right/wrong. Strange that, isn’t it?

“What if only we can believe in a God but the other species can’t or have no idea of the concept but do not rape or murder, what then.”

Well believe or not believe, many believers would argue that God instilled a moral code in us, coding us with what is right and wrong. Which begs the question as to why we vary so much. But most animals do not rape or murder unless it is a food or defence matter.

“Its now easy to say because God or is it, where does morality come from then or did we as humans evolve and grew up in all does years. Would we as humans do better if there was another dominant species on this planet.”

I think evolution naturally factors in the continuation of life. Many animals have lifelong partners and do not stray or cheat, though some might (as per humans). There are gay animals, deformed animals, animals of indeterminate sexual gender, animals which don’t make any other animal suffer by killing or raping them, e.g. vegetarians. I think if we were to take the moral code of most non-human animals and compare it to ours, especially that of religious people (of ANY religion or denomination), I’d go with the general animal kingdom as being far superior an d successful. Our species is doomed to extinction, and exclusively goes around torturing strangers of its own species in war, and will bring about the destruction of most living species in a very short time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, brachiosteve said:

Do we? Based on what? Where did/do we obtain it? How do we measure it or to what can we compare it or go to for authority or arbitration and why do so many differ?

So killing and rape was fine 500 years ago and we didn't know it was wrong?

What if people’s or animal's reasoning are different? Who is right or is everything subjective or decided by a vote or current society or religious belief or greed or selfishness or altruism or individual circumstances or philosophy? If I want to hurt you, and you don’t want me to hurt you, who’s decision is used or where do we go to find out? Now or at any time or place?

Are humans different from any other animal or higher/sentient/suffering one? If to force sex or kill is the same across species, then this is something several species did and do. Lions killing other animals and making them suffer just so they can eat it, is done by humans all the time, nd most humans kill/murder intelligent, sentient, suffering animals to eat them when they don’t need to. And murder is worse than rape. Very few animals rape, or need to or want to. Humans tend to do it (in spite of evolution not advocating it specifically) but can be punished for it.

Is human rape wrong? Legally, yes, in SOME countries/circumstances. Which is another way of saying, no, in many countries/circumstances. The countries where rape is permitted tend to be religiously controlled.

Is human rape wrong, morally/ethically? Again, it varies, but on the same religious/non-religious divide.

Is human rape wrong, universally? Well clearly not, if you happen to be religious at least. I know of no law or non-religious country or reason that justifies rape, so if anything, rape is only looked down upon badly, by non-religious people, universally. And yet despite this, those same non-religious people do not have an authority to right/wrong. Strange that, isn’t it?

Well believe or not believe, many believers would argue that God instilled a moral code in us, coding us with what is right and wrong. Which begs the question as to why we vary so much. But most animals do not rape or murder unless it is a food or defence matter.

I think evolution naturally factors in the continuation of life. Many animals have lifelong partners and do not stray or cheat, though some might (as per humans). There are gay animals, deformed animals, animals of indeterminate sexual gender, animals which don’t make any other animal suffer by killing or raping them, e.g. vegetarians. I think if we were to take the moral code of most non-human animals and compare it to ours, especially that of religious people (of ANY religion or denomination), I’d go with the general animal kingdom as being far superior an d successful. Our species is doomed to extinction, and exclusively goes around torturing strangers of its own species in war, and will bring about the destruction of most living species in a very short time.

We obtained it from others or even from ourselves, one way or another we have morality else this world would look different. I don't think morality can be measured because it something else for everybody. That said we know right from wrong we do not random kill people or rape people except does who does and are punished for it.

500 years ago was in the time of slavery and raping the slaves or even kill them, as society we grew and saw that we could not threat people like that anymore. So people changed not overnight but year over year until we saw them as equals. In some countries this is still an issue but the majority of people will call does countries out for it to change.

Who is right and who is wrong that is where the majority comes in if the majority says its wrong then its deemed wrong. A better question was to ask what if the majority does not see a crime in to killing someone, like its completely normal to do. What would the minority do then that thinks killing is wrong. Don't forget that killing in beliefs are the norm it seems, but could that be that the books are old and written in a time that killing and rape was normal. If religious books from the past are written now the authors would have gotten so much anger over them that they would go into hiding.

So if rape permitted in the religious sense should the world not react and say no more. But here is the problem if its religious then people look the other way saying its there believe we can't say anything about it because its religion. You see it in most countries if religion is in play laws that we have as society do not count because insert some lame excuse.

God and a moral code in a book that say kill x or rape x, but even does that are religious are not doing that what it says in the book. That is not from God but human to human because if it came from God people that are religious would still do what the book says.

Are the animals on this planet successful by what standard are we measuring we as humans have done so much in the little time we are here on this planet. Compared to other species on this planet if something would happen we are the only species on this planet that at thee moment can try to remove the planet from peril. No other species came even close into doing this, is it good to be the dominant species yes good for the planet no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We obtained it from others or even from ourselves, one way or another we have morality else this world would look different. I don't think morality can be measured because it something else for everybody. That said we know right from wrong we do not random kill people or rape people except does who does and are punished for it.

So you think there is morality and it is individual. So, whatever an individual decides or thinks is good or bad, is their morality. Wow, that would make a nice law – I’m in. Wouldn’t bode well for any society though. I think it would soon realise how bad that is and bring in laws, guidelines, a social contract and… oh, that’s already been done.

You may be playing into the hands/lair of the OP here, by saying that we know right from wrong, unless you really believe this. If you do, you must therefore declare your source and authority by which you judge this. And it needs to be universal – all times, all places, or you are moving the goalposts and making it subjective or arbitrary.

Why would people want to randomly go round killing or raping people, or do you think it is just the punishment which stops them? We cheat and lie and think bad things all day; why do we have to reach a certain level of, ‘badness/evil’ to claim the tag of immoral/evolutionary throwbacks? In spite of humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, largely being pretty, ‘moral/well behaved’ (if rape and murder are the factor and if we ignore killing to eat meat). The cartoon, ‘Taz’ (the Tasmanian devil) depicts a really evil personality, as do many horror films. Even the devil is depicted as cunning and doing nice things. Why stop at murder or rape? Why not continuously torture babies all day/night long for fun? Well maybe people don’t want to do this. Maybe people don’t go round thinking in terms or right and wrong, and so do their own thing, without thinking about this. Perhaps people like stealing from the rich to give to the poor, or eating ice cream and, ‘selfishly’ (or selflessly?!) sharing it in order to share a conversation. Hitler was supposedly a good person in private.

If we evolved naturally, then there is no purpose to the universe, other than whatever one chooses to give it, which is in effect, arbitrary. The concept of right and wrong, good and evil are therefore not recognised. They are more a religious invention in this sense. A secularist might rather look at thinks on a sliding scale of preference, desirability, usefulness, benefit, happiness, painlessness (and the antonyms to these).

I recommend Kant and Bentham/Mill (or summaries on youtube or reading) on universality (the categorical imperative) vs utility (the greatest good for the greatest number and measuring different qualities – e.g. is going to the opera of higher quality than going to the pub?). And the is/ought transition/contention of Hume.

 

500 years ago was in the time of slavery and raping the slaves or even kill them, as society we grew and saw that we could not threat people like that anymore. So people changed not overnight but year over year until we saw them as equals. In some countries this is still an issue but the majority of people will call does countries out for it to change.

WelI, I hope you don’t speak for societies then or now or in general, even thousands of years before. It is a few despots who are power hungry that make the news, who do such things. We still have people, whether ill or whatever, who reach such heights, but has it EVER actually been so in any society, represented by the people, anywhere? Consider Plato’s, ‘ring of gyges.

 

Who is right and who is wrong that is where the majority comes in if the majority says its wrong then its deemed wrong. A better question was to ask what if the majority does not see a crime in to killing someone, like its completely normal to do.

This is utilitarianism. Let’s all pick on the kid with ginger hair – who’s in?

What would the minority do then that thinks killing is wrong.

Hide, suffer, fight back (and suffer) or join in.

Don't forget that killing in beliefs are the norm it seems, but could that be that the books are old and written in a time that killing and rape was normal.

Even religious books, which seem to be the most extreme literature ever written, get fed up of murder and rape. God restricts it to just the occasional genocide and zaps a few others, but mostly, he lets folk live and places legal restrictions on when you can kill or rape people. But the concept of evolutionary traits or Godly instruction suggest routinely going round killing and raping for fun is alien. I refute that such crimes were ever normal, in any society, anywhere at any time amongst any species.

If religious books from the past are written now the authors would have gotten so much anger over them that they would go into hiding.

Isn’t it ironic then, that Salman Rushdie, in challenging the very texts that you believe people would go into hiding for writing today, went intro hiding! His latest book is, ‘Buddha’s a fat bastard’. Not really.

So if rape permitted in the religious sense should the world not react and say no more. But here is the problem if its religious then people look the other way saying its there believe we can't say anything about it because its religion. You see it in most countries if religion is in play laws that we have as society do not count because insert some lame excuse.

It is sometimes difficult to put yourself in someone else’s shoes. Neuro-typicals struggle to understand neuro-diverse people (and vice-versa). Christians see Muslims from the negative view that Christians learn about them, instead of from the horse’s mouth. Mainstream Christians universally reject so called, ‘cults, like JWs, Mormons etc.), even if they have no knowledge. Christians reject non-believers for reasons they are largely taught, rather than think for themselves. And non-believers often do not sufficiently (or at all), consider the arguments and related implications of theists.

IF there is a personal God, who largely represents/authored a divine Holy book(s), then those who understand/follow/accept/believe this, are RIGHT to do so. They are right to support and trey to enforce the thinks written there-in. There is no point in arguing that something YOU/I (an insignificant nobody) find offensive, is offensive, when they KNOW it is not, because it comes from a higher/ultimate authority. And so they proselytise to share the TRUTH and make the world a better place. Because YOU/I don’t approve is of no relevance. God know best.

So, there is little point in arguing about an issue based on morality/opinion, because God always wins. You have to attack the source – does this god exist? Is this Holy book credible? What is the evidence? If their response is to threaten with the terrible consequences (Pascals wager), then one deals with this fallacy.

God and a moral code in a book that say kill x or rape x, but even does that are religious are not doing that what it says in the book. That is not from God but human to human because if it came from God people that are religious would still do what the book says.

Having been a committed believer for many years, I have seen both sides and have experienced that one can be taught/convinced by something and believe it is a conscience thing from God. I still feel guilty about some things, which were only presented to me as a believer, and yet there is no reason to be.

Are the animals on this planet successful by what standard are we measuring we as humans have done so much in the little time we are here on this planet. Compared to other species on this planet if something would happen we are the only species on this planet that at thee moment can try to remove the planet from peril. No other species came even close into doing this, is it good to be the dominant species yes good for the planet no.

I have argued the exact opposite inn much of this. We are the least intelligent, the least benefit, the shortest likely species to live and then die out, we do not adapt well and will likely (continue to) destroy the earth totally, not benefit it, and all other species. More species are dying out due to our existence. What benefit is a human brain that can/chooses to create a bomb and commits genocide and earth destruction with it, even if we cured cancer or helped a few stranded cats in trees? We measure intelligence wrongly or if rightly, it is not a good measure of success, certainly in evolutionary terms, concerning future development, progression and survival. With great power comes great responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines