Meaning of Right and Wrong... Finally Answered!

[pacian]

Rape? A woman is programmed to want to have sex with men who would increase her babies chances of survivability. Being rape destroys the woman's option to choose and thus decreases survivability for that child.

Whut? A woman has a child with a father whom she did not choose. How does that decrease the survivability of the child? Many women bare children from fathers they did not chose. They have no idea who the father is in some cases. Watch Jerry Springer, he showcases bitches like that. There is no decrease in the childrens survivability.

Even if a child wasn't produced and the woman lived with no decrease to survivability, rape has a negative connotation due to rape leading to murder, injury, and other factors that could decrease survivability.

Of the woman, true. But since you are basing "right" and "wrong" (in a objective stance it seems) on nothing more than survivability of the species, ponder this;

Rapist rapes 20 women. He has increased the survivability of his genetic material 20 times. He has potentially created 20 human beings. He has increased the survivability and increased potential procreation 20 times more than the man who did not.
Using your hypothesis about an objective "right/wrong" based on survivability, shouldn't rape be listed under 'Right'?

That is why this assertion

That is why raped is perceived as always wrong no matter the context.

is in error. I'm sure with a little thought you could come up with a context or two in which rape would not be perceived as "always wrong".

Okay, first, your first question? "A woman has a child with a father whom she did not choose. How does that decrease the survivability of the child? " A woman in general is programmed to be attracted to male’s that increases her child‘s survivability in the long run. Women choose the men who have the best traits to do this because their children are more likely to have the same traits and thus there kids are more likely to be more attractive to reproduce. If a man rapes a woman, the woman did not filter him to sleep with him. The man on his own, might have attractive qualities, but the fact that the woman didn’t choose him means he could also have bad qualities that would make their kids less likely to survive, maybe he’s ugly, maybe he has no social smarts, or no logical intelligence, maybe he has no charisma and can’t get laid from females. Those are traits their children could express and thus make the children less likely to survive, decreasing survivability.

Now your second question: “Rapist rapes 20 women. He has increased the survivability of his genetic material 20 times. He has potentially created 20 human beings. He has increased the survivability and increased potential procreation 20 times more than the man who did not. Using your hypothesis about an objective "right/wrong" based on survivability, shouldn't rape be listed under 'Right'?”

That could be the case, but it seems the survivability of the species is best suited when the male and females filter each other out to increase their offspring’s survivability. Lets say I have race horses. Some average or slow running horse that we will call Mr. Ed rapes 20 of the other female horses. His offspring are more likely to get his average yet slow genes. Okay but lets say we have an amazingly fast horse, we will call him Mr. Awesome… Mr. Awesome is naturally a chick magnet due to his desirable traits, he probably could can get laid by all the females, he has way more potential then the rapist, because Mr. Ed is limited by how many females he can get away with raping, which is way harder to do then Mr. Awesome’s limitation, which is how many females can he meet, because the females would be naturally attracted to him. Mr. Awesome offspring are also more likely to receive his awesome genes and when competing with Mr. Eds kids, they are more likely to reproduce more then a rapist who is limited by the number of horses he can rape. And lets face it Mr. Eds daughters won’t be able to rape the male horses as easily due to males being technically stronger. But Mr. Awesomes’ daughters will be able to sprint faster a trait considered better to their survival when being chased by predators. Another factor is Males are protective of females and males are even more protective of desirable females. Mr. Ed’s kids will have a harder time raping these females due to their protection, where as Mr. Awesomes is more likely to have these desirable females naturally because he himself is a diserable male. This all increasing his children’s survivability above than Mr. Ed’s offsping. Plus even if Mr. Ed is desirable then he would not need to rape because the woman would come to him. It is more likely Mr. Ed is a loser or mentally ill. Being mentally ill on average does not increase your survivability because you are probably lacking traits of charisma, social intellect, and other factors that would increase your ability to make friends, or girlfriends. Oh and yes making friends is a positive trait linked to increase survivability, just ask females why they are attracted to the popular guys in high school

Anyways on your third question you are right you could probably find a way to increase survivability while raping, but like I said it has a negative connotation and will be considered wrong almost always. And like I said nature seems to prefer the best traits to mix when male and females filter each other, respectively.