Idea for a moral dilemma - rape or extinction.
Poll
In the example below, would rape be morally permissible ?
For some reason the Earths population is almost extinct after a nuclear holocaust or some such thing. All that is left of humanity are twelve men and twelve women. You are one if the survivors.
In some cruel twist of fate the survivors of the opposite gender are homosexual and what's more, are ideologically committed for say religious reasons that humanity should not survive,
They won't kill themselves and they won't ever be convinced to have children either naturally or through artificial means.
In this example, should rape be permitted and would it be an act of evil?
In some cruel twist of fate the survivors of the opposite gender are homosexual and what's more, are ideologically committed for say religious reasons that humanity should not survive,
They won't kill themselves and they won't ever be convinced to have children either naturally or through artificial means.
In this example, should rape be permitted and would it be an act of evil?
(edited 8 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Davij038
In this example, should rape be permitted and would it be an act of evil?
I take a prior-existence view of morality: I believe that the welfare of those who already exist and those who are likely to exist in the future matters, but the welfare of beings whose existence is contingent on a decision we make does not matter.
So, seeing as rape would violate someone's preferences and seeing as, on my view, extinction is not wrong in itself (although scenarios involving extinction are often negative for those who are being killed), I do not think rape would be morally permissible in this case.
There are some notable people who disagree with me, including the director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, the philosopher Nick Bostrom. He's outlined an 'astronomical stakes' argument in favour of reducing extinction risk, because the happy lives of potentially trillions of humans and post-humans would never exist if humanity goes extinct.
The only possible reason I would have for agreeing with the statement is if there are nonhuman animals left over in the wild who continue to suffer: it's conceivable that humanity will, one day, abolish all suffering in both humans and nonhuman animals (for instance, by phasing out predation). As a result, due to humanity going extinct, we'd be allowing natural selection in the wild to continue which, as Richard Dawkins has put it, is brutal:
The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.
Original post by Davij038
For some reason the Earths population is almost extinct after a nuclear holocaust or some such thing. All that is left of humanity are twelve men and twelve women. You are one if the survivors.
In some cruel twist of fate the survivors of the opposite gender are homosexual and what's more, are ideologically committed for say religious reasons that humanity should not survive,
They won't kill themselves and they won't ever be convinced to have children either naturally or through artificial means.
In this example, should rape be permitted and would it be an act of evil?
In some cruel twist of fate the survivors of the opposite gender are homosexual and what's more, are ideologically committed for say religious reasons that humanity should not survive,
They won't kill themselves and they won't ever be convinced to have children either naturally or through artificial means.
In this example, should rape be permitted and would it be an act of evil?
There's no such thing as objective good and evil, so what's "good" and what's "evil" is just what the populus / dominant power decides it to be. If some of the men decide they want to rape the women, and these men are collectively stronger than those who would oppose this, then rape is good (aka. "might is right" )
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Alaska+
There's no such thing as objective good and evil, so what's "good" and what's "evil" is just what the populus / dominant power decides it to be. If some of the men decide they want to rape the women, and these men are collectively stronger than those who would oppose this, then rape is good (aka. "might is right" )
oh?
Original post by Implication
oh?
Prove me wrong.
Original post by Alaska+
Prove me wrong.
what? i wouldn't know where to begin lol, why don't you try demonstrating that you are right?
Original post by Implication
what? i wouldn't know where to begin lol, why don't you try demonstrating that you are right?
why bother posting if you dont have anything to say?
Original post by Alaska+
Prove me wrong.
There is such a thing as an objective good and an objective bad.
Every sentient being aims to minimise its own suffering and maximise the satisfaction of its interests. However, there is no rational justification for anyone to assign more importance to their suffering, or their interests, than to anyone else's: their suffering is no less real when they experience it than when you do. Thus, if we are to aim to minimise our suffering, and maximise the satisfaction of our interests – which it is impossible not to – it logically follows that we are obligated to do the same for others. Hence, we arrive at the objective moral system, in the form of utilitarianism; specifically, preference utilitarianism. This moral system is also universal, given that there is not a sentient being out there which does not try to maximise the satisfaction of its interests, and minimise its suffering.
Another way to get there is to recognise that, say, suffering, is bad for all sentient beings. It is, one could therefore state, objectively bad. As Magnus Vinding puts it: suffering and its inherent badness is a fact about consciousness, and this is not a made-up value statement, anymore than the assertion that the moon exists is a made-up value statement and something we could decide to change. We cannot just decide that suffering is not bad.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Alaska+
why bother posting if you dont have anything to say?
to question your completely unjustified assertion
Original post by Implication
to question your completely unjustified assertion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
There now you have some justification.
Now remind me, what are you contributing to this discussion exactly?
Original post by Alaska+
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
There now you have some justification.
Now remind me, what are you contributing to this discussion exactly?
There now you have some justification.
Now remind me, what are you contributing to this discussion exactly?
Do you not have your own justification? You cite a Wikipedia article with a number of mutually exclusive viewpoints. Perhaps you could detail which you adhere to, and why?
Also, I've given you a fairly detailed justification of why I believe there are objective moral values, thereby meeting the burden of evidence you placed upon my position. Are you able to refute this justification?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by viddy9
Do you not have your own justification? You cite a Wikipedia article with a number of mutually exclusive viewpoints. Perhaps you could detail which you adhere to, and why?
Also, I've given you a fairly detailed justification of why I believe there are objective moral values, thereby meeting the burden of evidence you placed upon my position. Are you able to refute this justification?
Also, I've given you a fairly detailed justification of why I believe there are objective moral values, thereby meeting the burden of evidence you placed upon my position. Are you able to refute this justification?
I saw your post, but I have a job dude, so dont have time during the day for long posts.
Will take a look at it later for sure....I have a feeling this will be interesting.
Original post by Alaska+
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
There now you have some justification.
Now remind me, what are you contributing to this discussion exactly?
There now you have some justification.
Now remind me, what are you contributing to this discussion exactly?
i know what moral relativism is. i'd like you to justify your claim so we can move on with the discussion. alternatively, we can just paste wikipedia links to each other
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism
Original post by Davij038
For some reason the Earths population is almost extinct after a nuclear holocaust or some such thing. All that is left of humanity are twelve men and twelve women. You are one if the survivors.
In some cruel twist of fate the survivors of the opposite gender are homosexual and what's more, are ideologically committed for say religious reasons that humanity should not survive,
They won't kill themselves and they won't ever be convinced to have children either naturally or through artificial means.
In this example, should rape be permitted and would it be an act of evil?
In some cruel twist of fate the survivors of the opposite gender are homosexual and what's more, are ideologically committed for say religious reasons that humanity should not survive,
They won't kill themselves and they won't ever be convinced to have children either naturally or through artificial means.
In this example, should rape be permitted and would it be an act of evil?
There is nothing wrong with extinction. If humans are all extinct nobody will be left here to worry about extinction. It doesn't matter whether humans populate the Earth or notand it doesn't matte if we all get wiped out tomorrow. Rape is wrong.
the lives of those who exist are more important than those of who might exist
human extinction will benefit a lot of other species, anyway, so it could be argued that it would be immoral to prevent human extinction
human extinction will benefit a lot of other species, anyway, so it could be argued that it would be immoral to prevent human extinction
As a consequentialist my own view would be that the act would to paraphrase Nietzche be beyond good or evil but would merely be an act of prudence.
Whilst there would be some situations in which extinction would be preferable this is not one of them.
It's also worth pointing out that probably everyone is a descendent of rape and whilst that does not condone the act i think that (highlighting my totalitarian element!) this is a case where the needs of society come before individual rights.
Whilst there would be some situations in which extinction would be preferable this is not one of them.
It's also worth pointing out that probably everyone is a descendent of rape and whilst that does not condone the act i think that (highlighting my totalitarian element!) this is a case where the needs of society come before individual rights.
As much as I want children personally, I don't see why people (often religious people) assume that the propagation of the species is morally right.
extinction - we have no moral obligation to reproduce, nor do we have an active interest in future generations existing. even if our lone existence was to be sterile, then that's not the fault of the woman or man that doesn't want to reproduce, that's entirely our own problem/burden
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Davij038
As a consequentialist my own view would be that the act would to paraphrase Nietzche be beyond good or evil but would merely be an act of prudence.
Whilst there would be some situations in which extinction would be preferable this is not one of them.
It's also worth pointing out that probably everyone is a descendent of rape and whilst that does not condone the act i think that (highlighting my totalitarian element!) this is a case where the needs of society come before individual rights.
Whilst there would be some situations in which extinction would be preferable this is not one of them.
It's also worth pointing out that probably everyone is a descendent of rape and whilst that does not condone the act i think that (highlighting my totalitarian element!) this is a case where the needs of society come before individual rights.
I don't understand how you could even characterise prolonging the existence of a species is "prudent" - how is it prudent and for what objective/aim? there is no aim in existence objectively speaking, and if we die, then there is no utility in it either when we can't perceive that it is taking place when we're not around. if I die now without children, how is this unintelligent of me when I might not even want children? the existence or non-existence of people after me isn't something that really affects me when I am not alive to perceive it
Original post by sleepysnooze
I don't understand how you could even characterise prolonging the existence of a species is "prudent" - how is it prudent and for what objective/aim? there is no aim in existence objectively speaking, and if we die, then there is no utility in it either when we can't perceive that it is taking place when we're not around. if I die now without children, how is this unintelligent of me when I might not even want children? the existence or non-existence of people after me isn't something that really affects me when I am not alive to perceive it
Without humanity there is neither good nor evil . Of course we are all going to die but I think it is wrong for beings such as Us which have so much capacity for civilisation,art, knowledge etc to go beyond our predestined time. I would say that survival is an objective aim for existence and the continuation of our species. I think that this trumps Human Rights.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Would you end all human life instantly if you could?
- 3rd Year Dissertation Ideas (ODP)
- Ban on single-use plastic cutlery comes into force in England
- Should i be concerned?
- Referencing in exams
- Morality is subjective in character with an objective compulsion.
- Is it okay for a vegan to work for a supermarket?
- OCR A Level Law Paper 3
- LNAT Essay
- Gofundme question (very sensitive issue)
- I need help finding a company that does degree apprenticeship for physics
- EPQ title help
- Animal extinction
- A-Level English Comparitive Coursework
- can someone give feedback on my eng lit essay?
- can someone give me feedback and help on my eng lit essay? (A level)
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 7172/1 - 19 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- EPQ ideas
- Why is there a dinosaur in my garden?
- A-Level English Language Study Group 2023-2024
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
