Shark on Shark Rape. How Can We Stand By and Let This Happen?

[kravarnik]

I think it is horrible that we know that sharks are raping each other. . . but we don't do anything about it.  How can we, as decent human beings, stand by and let sharks keep raping each other?

Warning!  Shark Rape is Graphic!

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/shark-week/videos/shark-mating/

I wonder how other sharks stand and do nothing! How horrible are these sharks? They've devolved to mere animals! Oh, wait...


At some places in the Bible, wicked people who abide in lawlesness are described as animals. If one pays attention to these things in the Bible, then the imagery of animals being cruel is not so surprising. They are, because they aren't spiritual beings, capable of morality. They do as they are wired to do. We too are wired, but have the spirit and the will to act contrary, if we decide and choose to.

Animals, however, I don't think have any significant personal will and spirit to act against and identify moral wrongdoings.

What exactly, and of what value and worth, is damaged in shark rape? The shark's dignity? The shark's intrinsic worth? The shark's ethical code? Where are we getting the idea that they have such? I don't think the mere fact of physical pain taking place makes something "wrong." Childbirth brings pain to human beings and animals alike, but I'd hardly see the baby coming out as a criminal.

[Emuse]

I wonder how other sharks stand and do nothing!

If the commentator is correct then what is happening in the video is not rape.  The male shark waits for the female to indicate her willingness to be mated with before doing anything.

How horrible are these sharks? They've devolved to mere animals! Oh, wait...

They've devolved into animals?  Did they have ancestors that were more than animals?  What does this even mean?  And why the word "mere"? 

At some places in the Bible, wicked people who abide in lawlesness are described as animals.

So this low opinion Christians have of non human species comes from the Bible?

[Trinity]

So i am not just an animal?

1. A cat is just an animal.
2. A shark is different to a cat.
3. Therefore, a shark is not just an animal.

I shall leave you to ponder on this and why you need to remove such reasoning from your arguments.

Can I pour acid on my cat and cut her eyeballs with razor blades if it gives me pleasure?  She is not made in the image of God and is just an animal after all.

You can.

[kravarnik]

I wonder how other sharks stand and do nothing!

If the commentator is correct then what is happening in the video is not rape.  The male shark waits for the female to indicate her willingness to be mated with before doing anything.

How horrible are these sharks? They've devolved to mere animals! Oh, wait...

They've devolved into animals?  Did they have ancestors that were more than animals?  What does this even mean?  And why the word "mere"? 

At some places in the Bible, wicked people who abide in lawlesness are described as animals.

So this low opinion Christians have of non human species comes from the Bible?

Something would be rape, because of the intrinsic worth of the victim and the realized intention of the perpetrator - and not solely because "force" is applied(someone could slip a sleeping drug, and then have intercourse with the victim, without any force taking palce whatsoever). So, it wouldn't be rape, because sharks do not have the intrinsic value, nor the needed capacities to "realize" and have "intent." Or, at least these are not established, in order to meaningfully talk about "shark rape."Also, I find it funny how someone claims to know what a shark is "willing."


My first comment wasn't at all a serious line of argumentation. I was rellying on people not thinking me that stupid to say these things, but I guess you take me as that stupid(which is very charitable, indeed). Anyhow.


"Low opinion." ? What low opinion? Animals are God's creation, which was called "good," and if God calls something good, then it deserves the appropriate conduct for it being "good." However, God definitely didn't create animals to be equals to us, and have the same rules we apply to human-to-human relationships, to theirs.

[Emuse]

You can.

Is it morally acceptable for me to torture my cat for fun because it is just an animal (or a "mere" animal if you prefer)?

I think we all know what we mean in the context of a discussion like this Trin, so let's not derail the progress of the conversation unnecessarily.

[Trinity]

I don't see why it would be morally unacceptable to pour chemicals on other chemicals.

[Soren]

Any statement that talks about "animals" as if they were a monolithic group is silly. Different animals have different levels of self-awareness and different levels of awareness of fairness and other concepts related to morality. In fact, one can see a continuum of development of moral concepts that leads to humans -- we obviously have a more sophisticated grasp of moral concepts than even higher animals, but the clean break that Steve B. suggests and that one might expect on theism is just not there. In short, we are animals but not "just animals," as Emuse has tirelessly pointed out.

[Emuse]

Something would be rape, because of the intrinsic worth of the victim and the realized intention of the perpetrator - and not solely because "force" is applied(someone could slip a sleeping drug, and then have intercourse with the victim, without any force taking palce whatsoever).

I haven't said that rape requires force.  This is all a bit tangential.  If a sexual act is consensual then no rape has occurred, even if force has been used.  Some women enjoy a man to use force during sexual acts but that would be a separate conversation altogether. 

So, it wouldn't be rape, because sharks do not have the intrinsic value ...

It isn't rape because the female shark indicates her willingness.  She gives her consent to the male after the initial courtship.  This suggests that she may have enjoyed what came before.  Not saying she did - it's just a possibility.  The definition of rape is "a sexual act carried out upon a person sans their consent".  If non human species are able to give or withhold consent then technically, one non human could rape another.

And can I pour acid on my cat?  After all, it has no intrinsic value.

... nor the needed capacities to "realize" and have "intent." Or, at least these are not established, in order to meaningfully talk about "shark rape."Also, I find it funny how someone claims to know what a shark is "willing."

We can identify willingness via behaviour.  What is so strange about that?  I know when my cat both wants (and is willing) to be stroked.

"Low opinion." ? What low opinion? Animals are God's creation, which was called "good," and if God calls something good, then it deserves the appropriate conduct for it being "good."

But it is the theists (not the atheists) in this thread who've suggested that things have no "intrinsic worth" if they are "just animals" and so on.  I'm just delving into that and asking questions to promote discussion.

[Emuse]

I don't see why it would be morally unacceptable to pour chemicals on other chemicals.

Not even if the bunch of chemicals was sentient and could suffer?

Is a cat just a bunch of chemicals then?  And if the answer is yes, does this mean I can pour acid on my cat and this is morally acceptable?

Please at least try and engage with the discussion.

[kravarnik]

So, it wouldn't be rape, because sharks do not have the intrinsic value ...

It isn't rape because the female shark indicates her willingness.  She gives her consent to the male after the initial courtship.  This suggests that she may have enjoyed what came before.  Not saying she did - it's just a possibility.  The definition of rape is "a sexual act carried out upon a person sans their consent".  If non human species are able to give or withhold consent then technically, one non human could rape another.

And can I pour acid on my cat?  After all, it has no intrinsic value.

... nor the needed capacities to "realize" and have "intent." Or, at least these are not established, in order to meaningfully talk about "shark rape."Also, I find it funny how someone claims to know what a shark is "willing."

We can identify willingness via behaviour.  What is so strange about that?  I know when my cat both wants (and is willing) to be stroked.

"Low opinion." ? What low opinion? Animals are God's creation, which was called "good," and if God calls something good, then it deserves the appropriate conduct for it being "good."

But it is the theists (not the atheists) in this thread who've suggested that things have no "intrinsic worth" if they are "just animals" and so on.  I'm just delving into that and asking questions to promote discussion.

We don't know what the shark is willing. You don't know what inside a shark's head, because that would take "revelation(much like we can reveal what's on our mind)."


You don't identify willingness via behavior. You are assuming "willingness," via behavior. You can know that about other human beings, because you know other human beings have "will." You don't know whether sharks do. It's very question begging, because you're basically assuming most of your case which I dispute - that sharks do not have personal will. But you say something along the lines of "since behavior = willingness." Well,, not really, I've seen people who has shown "friendly behavior," but later revealed that they were wishing the death of all the people in the room. So, what is one "willing" is not just "behavior."


No, you know your cat's body needs stroking. You don't know whether there's some personal will within your cat, which is "willing." You're begging the question, once again - in assuming that behavior = personal will of some sort. Not really. I could construct a robot and program it to yell "I NEED WATER, I WANT WATEEER," and express a behavior as if it's really thirsty, but it wouldn't mean the robot actually has a will of any sort.


Once again - no. They don't have the intrinsic worth to be subjects to human-to-human ethical rules. They still have intrinsic worth, but not to such proportion. And it's you atheists, who twist what theists are saying and aren't pantient and comprehensive enough to not rush to hasty conclusions. And humans doing cruel things to animals would be wrong, not because the intrinsic worth of the animal, but due to the human being intending to do evil, which is a sin. If you intend to kill an animal, for otherwise you'd starve to death, then that's not sin. However, if you intend to torture an animal to receive pleasure out of seeing and inflicting suffering, then that's sinful and it's because the human defiling the worth God has put in him, and not so much because there are "animal rights."

[Emuse]

We don't know what the shark is willing. You don't know what inside a shark's head, because that would take "revelation(much like we can reveal what's on our mind)."

The claim that the shark is showing willingness would be founded on hours of research involving close observation of shark behaviour.  This type of reasoning most certainly doesn't require revelation.  Animals have non-verbal forms of communication and we can most certainly reasonably conclude a willingness based on our observation of a behaviour.

You don't identify willingness via behavior.

So if you ask me "Would you like to come to the cinema?" and I respond by smiling and nodding my head, you cannot conclude from this that I am willing to go?  After all, you've only observed a behaviour.

You can know that about other human beings, because you know other human beings have "will."

How do I know that other beings have will?  I think I do, but how do I know that's true of other beings that are similar to me?  All I can observe of other human beings is their behaviour.

And I don't think that worth is intrinsic anyway (God or no God).  It is extrinsic.

[Trinity]

Emuse,

Isn't that true for humans as well? For instance, the recent events in Germany and Sweden have led the authorities to issue brochures and 'sex eds' to basically teach refugees about indicators, behaviour and female willingness to sex. I remember a brochure which explained that body language and how a woman dresses should not be used as indicators. Some German schools have even issued policies telling their female students to cover their bodies in order to not send the wrong sexual indicators and body language to male refugees.

[Emuse]

Emuse,

Isn't that true for humans as well? For instance, the recent events in Germany and Sweden have led the authorities to issue brochures and 'sex eds' to basically teach refugees about indicators, behaviour and female willingness to sex. I remember a brochure which explained that body language and how a woman dresses should not be used as indicators. Some German schools have even issued policies telling their female students to cover their bodies in order to not send the wrong sexual indicators and body language to male refugees.

We can misinterpret non verbal signals.  For sure.  But some are pretty unambiguous.

This is where knowledge of Autism helps incidentally.  The difficulties that autistic people have in reading facial expressions also makes it incredibly hard for them to know how another person is thinking and feeling.  The claim that we don't accurately judge subjective states based on observations of outward behaviour is demonstrably false.

[kravarnik]

We don't know what the shark is willing. You don't know what inside a shark's head, because that would take "revelation(much like we can reveal what's on our mind)."

The claim that the shark is showing willingness would be founded on hours of research involving close observation of shark behaviour.  This type of reasoning most certainly doesn't require revelation.  Animals have non-verbal forms of communication and we can most certainly reasonably conclude a willingness based on our observation of a behaviour.

You don't identify willingness via behavior.

So if you ask me "Would you like to come to the cinema?" and I respond by smiling and nodding my head, you cannot conclude from this that I am willing to go?

You can know that about other human beings, because you know other human beings have "will."

How do I know that?  All I can observe of other human beings is their behaviour.

And I don't think that worth is intrinsic anyway (God or no God).  It is extrinsic.

No, you cannot confirm willingness. That's completely false. By your logic, I can then proclaim a robot a willful being, because it shows behavior of some sort(which it is pre-programmed to show). That's sheer absurdity. Just because certain behavior is taking place, doesn't mean there's a will behind it. This behavior could very well be concluded as "the sharks' body need X, when they show Y behavior." There's no need to invoke any WILL at all. And, as I said, you're pretty much assuming the conclusion there. I showed you how behavior does not necessarily imply willingness. All you had is "well, hours of observation!" Well, I may observe a robot all my life, and the fact of it showing behavior and me observing it for a long time won't make it any more willful being.


I can conclude that, because I wouldn't have any reason to think you lying. However, the fact that something nods and smiles, isn't a proof of willingness. I've had toys that nod and smile. That never convinced me of them being willful beings. I'm not saying behavior CANNOT SHOW willingness, but that behavior ALONE DOES NOT PROVE willingness, because behavior is also consistent with non-willful things(robots can exemplify behavior ; toys can ; cartoon characters in a cartoon animation ; etc.)



You know it by you yourself being a human being and expericing personal will, which you can extend to others of your specie. It's not solely because you observe others behaving. That may be a reason, but not very conclusive one. The same applies to animal behavior - just because they show behavior, doesn't mean they possess personal will. It could be in support of that conclusion, but when coupled with something additional, for this premise on its own is not sufficient to arrive at "animals have personal will!" Because something showing behavior is also consistent with non-willfulness.

[Trinity]

Emuse,

Isn't that true for humans as well? For instance, the recent events in Germany and Sweden have led the authorities to issue brochures and 'sex eds' to basically teach refugees about indicators, behaviour and female willingness to sex. I remember a brochure which explained that body language and how a woman dresses should not be used as indicators. Some German schools have even issued policies telling their female students to cover their bodies in order to not send the wrong sexual indicators and body language to male refugees.

We can misinterpret non verbal signals.  For sure.  But some are pretty unambiguous.

This is where knowledge of Autism helps incidentally.  The difficulties that autistic people have in reading facial expressions also makes it incredibly hard for them to know how another person is thinking and feeling.  The claim that we don't accurately judge subjective states based on observations of outward behaviour is demonstrably false.

I don't think refugees are any more autistic than non-refugees.
Separating sexual behaviour from sexual willingness is a recent western phenomenon. Most cultures do not consider behaviour to be separate from willingness. If men and women dress and behave sexually, then this is a good indicator for their willingness to sex. This explains why the school has issued new policies regarding dress code to their students, because the school understands that different cultures have different understandings of human sexuality.