In last week’s installment of “Foundations for Atheist Morality”, we started to take a look at some of the practical moral dilemmas which arise when we use nature as a model for a universal code of conduct. We looked at how this model affects our view of birth control and abortion and concluded with two questions concerning the moral propriety of both rape and homosexuality. This week, we will address the latter two topics (rape and homosexuality) in greater depth.
Before we do however, we must emphasize again that atheism comes in many forms and that atheists, themselves, can vary widely in both their beliefs and their defense of them. The view which we are examining here is only one of many. Our purpose is not to “debunk” atheism, but rather to demonstrate that when logically examined, this particular support for a moral lifestyle leads to conclusions which even those atheists who support the view are likely to find repugnant.
Let us begin with the question of whether rape must also be accepted as a laudable act, since there are instances in nature in which the male of the species is seen to force himself upon the female of the species. While at first blush, this may seem to be the case, I believe that an argument can be made that a difference does exist between a male forcing himself upon a woman for the purpose of sexual gratification and a male forcing himself upon a woman for the purpose of reproduction. Since rape is (with few exceptions) performed with the former intent, i.e., that of gratification, it would seem that it remains morally reprehensible regardless of whether natural law is accepted or rejected.
What about homosexuality? While instances of homosexual behavior have been witnessed in nature, it is important to note that by and large this is not the norm. Natural selection tends towards the preservation of the species and members of the species who engage in acts which do not promote such reproduction are left to their natural end.
Under such circumstances, the need for us as humans to take an interest in preserving the lives of those who engage in or suffer consequences from any sexual act (heterosexual or homosexual) becomes questionable. Indeed, to attempt to alleviate the suffering and eventual decay or death which result from diseases such as AIDS or other STD’s simply doesn’t make sense if nature is to be allowed to take its natural course. Indeed, apathy would seem to be morally obligatory in such circumstances.
But if we are to allow nature to simply “take its course”, selecting the strong and eliminating the weak, where does this leave us in regard to other “weak” segments of human society? And do we have any right to intervene to help or preserve the lives of the elderly or the handicapped? It would seem that if natural law as it is played out in the animal kingdom is to be our guide, the answer would be “no”… yet even many atheists agree that a strong argument can be made that the presence of the physically or mentally weak does help to strengthen and preserve our society.
We’ll take a closer look at this issue next week, but for now, feel free to share your thoughts on the subject in the comment box below!