SailingCyclops wrote:Example:
A nuclear holocaust has killed all humans on earth except one male and one female. The female refuses to have sex with the male, dooming the entire human species to extinction. Is it moral or immoral for the male to rape the female thereby possibly saving the species? Bear in mind that survival is hard-wired into our genes; uppermost in priority is the survival of the species, second is survival of the group, and third is survival of the individual.
SailingCyclops wrote:Survival is the most powerful instinct within all living things. Should a selfish personal "right" trump the survival of an entire species? I think not. What good is even the concept of morality if it does not benefit the species?
- in this scenario, "the species" consists of one man and one women. Neither of their survival is dependent upon them having children. Thus the survival of the species is not threatened.
- logistics: if the woman is so reluctant, presumably she will have to be kept locked in a room, possibly restrained, possibly force-fed for nine months. I will leave it to SailingCyclops to state whether these factors are meant to be considered or whether his scenario avoids these some how (nuclear powered gestation acceleration?).
My basic disagreement, I think, is that potential, not-yet-conceived humans should not have rights, or at least what rights they have cannot be said to outweigh the rights of actual existing humans. The right of a woman not to be raped outweighs the right of a potential future human to exist.
umm... one male and one female would most likely not have enough diversity in there genetic structure to continue a race without causing major deformations. We already all share a large amount of our genetic structure.
