As a follow-up to yesterday's post, let us for a moment assume that naturalism, the view that nature is all there is, is correct and that humanity is the product of a long process of blind evolutionary development. If so, let's further consider the question of what men and women are for.
That is, given that we're just evolutionarily advanced mammals what "purpose" do we fulfill? Of course, I put "purpose" in quotes because on the view we're considering there actually is, nor can there be, no genuine purpose for humanity, but let's play along with the idea anyway.
Well, speaking purely biologically, male humans have evolved to serve two primary purposes: First, to spread their genes as far and wide as they can and second, to fight for territory and resources. Any reading of history will confirm that these have always been, and still are, the two main drivers of male behavior.
In modern times, in what we call the civilized world, these behaviors have been sublimated somewhat by sports and other competitive endeavors, but they still underlie most of male behavior.
What about females? Speaking purely biologically - and on naturalism that's pretty much all there is - women have evolved to attract males for mating and to bear and raise the young that result.
This is, of course, a horrid claim in today's PC climate in which any suggestion that the sexual subordination and even oppression of women is natural is guaranteed to provoke howls of outrage, but it's nevertheless correct all the same. That is, it's correct if naturalism is true, and there's a piquant irony in this.
Many of those who would be most repulsed by this description of male and female roles hold to a naturalistic worldview even so. They reject the only metaphysical position which could grant a greater dignity and purpose for both men and women. They reject the traditional theistic view that we are created not solely by natural forces, but by a God in whose image we are.
Having rejected this view they're left with naturalism and are therefore left with the evolutionary view whose consequences they ironically deplore.
Moreover, on naturalism, there's no basis for charging any behavior with being immoral since there's no moral law to be violated. Thus no matter how distastefully men may behave toward women, the most we can say about that behavior is that it offends certain social conventions. We can't say that it's morally wrong.
So, if naturalism is true men who sexually exploit women are simply following an unpleasant evolutionary imperative. Modern women may not like it, but it's hard to see what grounds they have for complaint as long as they themselves continue to adhere to the naturalistic, evolutionary paradigm.
