Originally posted by epiphinehas
So God, if he so wills it, could declare the act of rape good and righteous? But how would that declaration change the act itself, the damage it causes, its short and long term effects, or the malicious intent of the rapist? Or perhaps God could make rape pleasurable for women; even something positive in their lives? This sounds absurd t ...[text shortened]... y stamped on the human heart, it's simply the exercising of our capacity for rational thought.
There are usually sound naturalistic (rationally understandable) reasons for the existence of a moral rule in a society, having to do with its stability and survival. But I think it is an overstatement to say that "It seems obvious that we arrive at our understanding of right and wrong based on a rational evaluation of an act, not whether or not an act is in conformity with some sort of divine declaration (or guideline, e.g., the golden rule)." Even if such rules are arrived at by rational evaluation, society's response to them can be out of proportion to the harm, and they can outlive their rational basis.
I think it is an overstatement for two reasons:
1. Our emotional responses to things are biological shortcuts, that develop to kick in when the calm deliberate exercise of reason among those involved will take too long to develop a response to a given situation. The act will be compete before all the implications have been considered. So the response has to be extreme, to discourage the act in advance.
2. A learned moral injunction against an act may continue to control behavior long after the social benefits and costs have flipped poles and the act has become dangerous to the survival of the society. This is in part due to the fact that we use conservative reinforcers such as religion where our moral rules are enshrined and given added staying power.