Of Rape and Relatavism
March 21st, 2008
by Daren J
I’ve been considering the idea that forced rape could be necessary to propagate the species, and while it is highly unlikely such a scenario would ever present, I thought of something else. This topic was discussed in THIS POST, particularly in the comments, but I would like to bring up a tangential point: Using the furtherance of the species as a justification for rape supposes that species survival is “good,” or at least what humans “ought to do.” Now, I can’t argue that species survival isn’t “better” than extinction (as a matter of my opinion since I am a human), but is it “good” ?
Example: I don’t think many people would argue with the position that it is “better” to have money enough to survive than to live in poverty. However, it does not follow from that that being wealthy is “good” and poor “bad.” Does it?
[Note - I’ve left myself wide open for criticism that I’m implying that “goodness” can exist outside of human consciousness… or have I ?]. 
March 24th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Well, no takers, so I’ll continue the idea. You might remember that I said in a prior post that some questions are “bogus” ethical questions. I think that asserting the furtherance of the species as “good” is not really an ethical assertion. Humans not existing has no real nexus to real ethics which have to do with harming our fellow humans. It is a language trap of the type that Wittgenstein thought philosophers got all tangled in.