rape among animals

[holy king]

animal rape and absolute morality

It has long been observed that some animals appear to show behavior resembling rape in humans, such as combining sexual intercourse with violent assault, often observed in ducks and geese. Sometimes an animal is approached and sexually penetrated while it appears to not want it -- e.g. it struggles or tries to escape. These observations of forced sex among animals are not controversial. What is controversial is the interpretation of these observations, and the extension of theories based on them to humans.

It is because rape can result in increased fitness that some sociobiologists theorize that rape may be genetically advantageous for rapists, and thus prosper as a psychological adaptation.

It has also been recorded that certain species of mole will 'rape' new borns of their own species, the advantage to this is that when those moles mature and become fertile, they will become pregnant with the sperm of the mole that had mated with them at a very young age.

rape has also been recorded among chimpanzees, gorillas, whales and dolphins.


Now the question: are those animals commiting a crime (as in a "bad deed") ?
and further: if no, how does this work out with the concept of absolute morality?

in my opionion animals can never be guilty of knowingly commiting something immoral since they lack the self-consciousness. so if rape among humans is immoral and rape among animals is neutral though, that clearly shows there is no such thing as absolute morality.

 

[Arwon]

This may not be your intention but this sounds dangerously close to justifying or excusing rape as "natural" or "inevitable".

 

[holy king]

This may not be your intention but this sounds dangerously close to justifying or excusing rape as "natural" or "inevitable".

not if i follow kant's categorical imperative. and that's not the point.

 

[Sharwood]

rape has also been recorded among chimpanzees, gorillas, whales and dolphins.


Now the question: are those animals commiting a crime (as in a "bad deed") ?
and further: if no, how does this work out with the concept of absolute morality?

in my opionion animals can never be guilty of knowingly commiting something immoral since they lack the self-consciousness. so if rape among humans is immoral and rape among animals is neutral though, that clearly shows there is no such thing as absolute morality.

I remember reading a definition of evil once; Evil is entropy in service of intelligence. The example given was a rockslide. If a rockslide buries a town and kills innocent people, that's not evil. If an intelligent being causes that rockslide, it is evil.

That being said, it is very difficult to blame an animal, or even a mentally handicapped human, for something like rape. If they aren't capable of comprehending that what they're doing is a "bad deed", then they can't be considered to be committing a "bad deed." But once their intelligence passes a certain threshold, as humans have and as chimps and the other species you mentioned may have, then they would have to be intelligently commiting a bad deed, in which case they could be considered guilty.

 

[Arwon]

OK good, just checking.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Hell animal commit cannibalistic Infantcide as well, dosnt mean we should also do the same.

 

[holy king]

Hell animal commit cannibalistic Infantcide as well, dosnt mean we should also do the same.

the question is how does this go together with the concept of absolute morality?

 

[Dubai Vol]

"Rape," like "insane" is a legal term that applies specifically to humans. Animals can't be charged with crimes, and therefore entering a discussion by defining some animal behavior as "rape" is fallacious from the outset. Use a different term, such as forced mating, and the question dissolves. Animals are not subject to human moralcodes. Trying to reach a conclusion about human morality by observing the behavior of animals is impossible. Try again.

 

[Lillefix]

Does it go against absolute morality? You say they don't have a sense of morality, ergo they are out of the equation.

 

[Sharwood]

"Rape," like "insane" is a legal term that applies specifically to humans. Animals can't be charged with crimes, and therefore entering a discussion by defining some animal behavior as "rape" is fallacious from the outset. Use a different term, such as forced mating, and the question dissolves. Animals are not subject to human moralcodes. Trying to reach a conclusion about human morality by observing the behavior of animals is impossible. Try again.

Not what he was doing, as he's already explained twice.

 

[JerichoHill]

Morality is not absolute, it is contextual.

Furthermore, mankind is a very much different animal than chimps, dolphins, or elephants, the three species of self-aware animals on the planet.

 

[holy king]

Does it go against absolute morality? You say they don't have a sense of morality, ergo they are out of the equation.

if morality was absolute it - like a mathematical axiom - surely would apply to everything regardless of it's consciousness about it?

(damn i should have used a more neutral example... )

 

[Truronian]

Rape is not genetically adventageous for humans because we're not designed for it. This is probably the reason we consider it immoral aswell... its neither good for the individual nor the species.

 

[Arwon]

We consider the "Stranger in the Dark" Hollywood rape attack immoral, but the more common date-rape/coercion/she was asking for it/she was drunk/she didn't say no type stuff? Not so much.

 

[JerichoHill]

Arwon,

Society-in-total, you're right, they are viewed differently Personally, they're one and the same to me.

 

[Arwon]

Indeed. The fact that society thinks of rape the way it does is actually a huge problem, and lets a lot of rapists get away with it.

 

[JerichoHill]

I know we're going OT Arwon, but one reason why society deals with "close rape" differently is that its much more difficult to prove. Rape, whether by a stranger or someone known, is horrible, and more easily proven (most folks dont sleep with someone they dont know). But, when its with someone known, it can be a he said / she said situation. And, since our society presumes innocence before guilt, more people get off.

I did have a good friend in high school go to jail for rape. Sadly, he was wrongly jailed, and it took three years for the girl to recant (she got pregnant with another guy(ie not boyfriend), and blamed my friend (her boyfriend at the time) so that she wouldn't have to face the shame to her devoutly Christian parents that she was not only having pre-marital sex but that she was, essentially, a tramp. Thank goodness guilt finally got the better of her, but my buddy lost many good years of life. Of course, that was also before DNA testing was mainstream.

 

[aneeshm]

This may not be your intention but this sounds dangerously close to justifying or excusing rape as "natural" or "inevitable".

NATURALISTIC FALLACY ALERT!

EVEN IF it turns out that human rape is natural - which, by the way, it is - that IN NO WAY makes it morally acceptable.

 

[sourboy]

To imply that animals don't have an understanding of feelings and minimal morals like humans is rather egotistical. Most mammals know full well what they are doing.

In terms of instincts? I don't see a problem with this. In terms of morals, I do.

 

[holy king]

To imply that animals don't have an understanding of feelings and minimal morals like humans is rather egotistical. Most mammals know full well what they are doing.

In terms of instincts? I don't see a problem with this. In terms of morals, I do.

so moles can act immoral?