(November 13, 2012 at 12:04 pm)John V Wrote:

Darkstar Wrote:If forcing someone to have sex with you against their will isn't rape, then what is?

Rape is unlawful sexual intercourse. Most cultures have excluded sex between husband and wife from rape laws.

Called it^

EDIT: Next page? Called it in post 229.

John V Wrote:

Darkstar Wrote:And if you say that it isn't rape in a marriage, then we must note that the marriage was also forced.

Yes. You noted yourself that forced marriage does not necessarily imply rape.

Yeah, they get raped too. The excuse given to say it isn't rape is "well, they're married", but the marriage was also forced so it is doubly unfair.

John V Wrote:

Darkstar Wrote:Or are you implying that women shouldn't have a say in the matter, and that the bible is morally correct after all?

I'm just asking that critics get the situation correct. Is it still unsettling from a modern western POV? Yes. But most atheists view it as battlefield rape and/or sex slaves, and that's not accurate. In that culture, men were expected to marry, and polygamy was allowed. That means some wives were needed from outside.

(bolding added)

Because a culture did it automatically makes it okay? What about human sacrifices, are they okay too? Tell me, if someone is forced to 'marry' someone else, and that someone has absolute control over them, sexually and otherwise, is that person not basically a slave, regardless of what it is called?

(November 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(November 13, 2012 at 12:04 pm)John V Wrote: Rape is unlawful sexual intercourse. Most cultures have excluded sex between husband and wife from rape laws.

Called it^

EDIT: Next page? Called it in post 229.

Er, seeing as the quote of mine is from post 228, that was a pretty easy call.

Quote:Because a culture did it automatically makes it okay?

No. OTOH, because another culture in another time calls it rape does not automatically make it so.

Quote:What about human sacrifices, are they okay too? Tell me, if someone is forced to 'marry' someone else, and that someone has absolute control over them, sexually and otherwise, is that person not basically a slave, regardless of what it is called?

Call it what you like, but as that isn't true in this case, it's irrelevant.

(November 13, 2012 at 12:08 pm)John V Wrote: Guys, if your point is merely that you disagree with morality in the Bible, that ain't exactly a news flash. As morality is subjective, I don't bother arguing it with you. I'm just pointing out what really took place, and views on the subject from other times and cultures. You can disagree all you want.

Morality is subjective, but how subjective is it? Is even the golden rule completely null and void? I don't think so. The golden rule has a rational basis (with the exception of masochists) in that it is beneficial for both parties. Of course, even this is not 100% objective, but it is a very good rule of thumb. If one cannot even understand the merits of the golden rule, then that person may as well be amoral. Is murdering someone's family, kidnapping them, and putting them in a situation in which they must submit to their captor "in everything" (including sex) perfectly okay because morality is subjective? Perhaps by their flawed understanding. Now, just because morality is subjective does not mean that we cannot ever claim to have superior/better developed morals to a certain culture. Yes, there are many instances in which we cannot, but there are a few cases. If we are seeking to cause the least amount of harm, and cause harm to the least number of people, then this is not the way to go. If we are not, then what are morals for? (It should be noted that punishments for serious moral transgressions, such as murder, may be a sort of exception in that they harm, via legal punishment, the transgressor)

It's interesting that you're basically arguing that your opinion is correct and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Yet, you criticize God for doing the same.

---

(November 13, 2012 at 12:26 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Morality is subjective, but how subjective is it? Is even the golden rule completely null and void? I don't think so. The golden rule has a rational basis (with the exception of masochists) in that it is beneficial for both parties.

You're arguing utilitarianism, which can to some extent be objective. However, it is completely subjective to declare utilitarianism to be superior to any other method.

Quote:Of course, even this is not 100% objective, but it is a very good rule of thumb. If one cannot even understand the merits of the golden rule, then that person may as well be amoral. Is murdering someone's family, kidnapping them, and putting them in a situation in which they must submit to their captor "in everything" (including sex) perfectly okay because morality is subjective?

No. Neither does your calling it rape make it so.

Quote:Perhaps by their flawed understanding. Now, just because morality is subjective does not mean that we cannot ever claim to have superior/better developed morals to a certain culture.

Well, yes, that's what it means.

Quote:Yes, there are many instances in which we cannot, but there are a few cases. If we are seeking to cause the least amount of harm, and cause harm to the least number of people, then this is not the way to go.

See above on utilitarianism.

Quote:If we are not, then what are morals for?

They're frequently for the strengthening of a particular society, with no or little regard for the welfare of outsiders.

(November 13, 2012 at 12:26 pm)John V Wrote:

(November 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Called it^

EDIT: Next page? Called it in post 229.

Er, seeing as the quote of mine is from post 228, that was a pretty easy call.

Uh, yeah...I started typing that response before you posted, but finished it after you posted, so...yeah...

John V Wrote:

Darkstar Wrote:Because a culture did it automatically makes it okay?

No. OTOH, because another culture in another time calls it rape does not automatically make it so.

Perhaps whether or not it was rape should not be the question. They didn't call it rape because forcing your wife into sex was legal; we would call it rape because that isn't legal here. The better question is which definition of rape is better?

John V Wrote:

Darkstar Wrote:What about human sacrifices, are they okay too? Tell me, if someone is forced to 'marry' someone else, and that someone has absolute control over them, sexually and otherwise, is that person not basically a slave, regardless of what it is called?

Call it what you like, but as that isn't true in this case, it's irrelevant.

Which part isn't true? (honest question)
The comparison I intended to make with the first sentence would be something akin to: If human sacrifice wasn't called murder, then is it not immoral?

---

(November 13, 2012 at 12:28 pm)John V Wrote: It's interesting that you're basically arguing that your opinion is correct and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Yet, you criticize God for doing the same.

See below.

John V Wrote:

(November 13, 2012 at 12:26 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Morality is subjective, but how subjective is it? Is even the golden rule completely null and void? I don't think so. The golden rule has a rational basis (with the exception of masochists) in that it is beneficial for both parties.

You're arguing utilitarianism, which can to some extent be objective. However, it is completely subjective to declare utilitarianism to be superior to any other method.

Can you provide another method that is better, and a rational reasoning as to why? Does any other method have even a little objectivity in it?
Utilitarianism

John V Wrote:

Darkstar Wrote:Of course, even this is not 100% objective, but it is a very good rule of thumb. If one cannot even understand the merits of the golden rule, then that person may as well be amoral. Is murdering someone's family, kidnapping them, and putting them in a situation in which they must submit to their captor "in everything" (including sex) perfectly okay because morality is subjective?

No. Neither does your calling it rape make it so.

Depends on the legal definition. I'll drop the 'rape' and instead move to whether forced sex is immoral or not.

John V Wrote:

Darkstar Wrote:Perhaps by their flawed understanding. Now, just because morality is subjective does not mean that we cannot ever claim to have superior/better developed morals to a certain culture.

Well, yes, that's what it means.

Quote:Yes, there are many instances in which we cannot, but there are a few cases. If we are seeking to cause the least amount of harm, and cause harm to the least number of people, then this is not the way to go.

See above on utilitarianism.

Quote:If we are not, then what are morals for?

They're frequently for the strengthening of a particular society, with no or little regard for the welfare of outsiders.

You bring up an interesting point. Morals evolved to help groups survive, but in the distant past, groups were relatively small and didn't inclue outsiders. This much is still true to an extent today, but is beginning to become less so. At what point can we simply accept other people as human beings and get past our 'outsider' prejudice?

(November 13, 2012 at 12:35 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Perhaps whether or not it was rape should not be the question.

That seems like the question to me.

Quote:They didn't call it rape because forcing your wife into sex was legal; we would call it rape because that isn't legal here. The better question is which definition of rape is better?

And that's a completely subjective question. If you were brought up in another time and place, you might have a very different opinion on it.

Quote:Which part isn't true? (honest question)

The absolute control part. The woman would have legal protections afforded any other citizen. The regulations specifically say she was not to be treated as a slave.

(November 13, 2012 at 12:28 pm)John V Wrote: It's interesting that you're basically arguing that your opinion is correct and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Yet, you criticize God for doing the same.

Firstly, no god ever did such a thing. But to take this little gem semi-seriously, it isn't the proclamation that one's opinion is correct that is troubling, but the failure to follow through with a compelling reason that it is correct. Care to phone up the goblin you bow to and ask him to elaborate on his (many) opinions?

(November 13, 2012 at 12:48 pm)John V Wrote:

Quote:They didn't call it rape because forcing your wife into sex was legal; we would call it rape because that isn't legal here. The better question is which definition of rape is better?

And that's a completely subjective question. If you were brought up in another time and place, you might have a very different opinion on it.

Maybe, but would it be right? Suffering unnecesarily is generally bad; can we agree on this first point?

John V Wrote:

Darkstar Wrote:Which part isn't true? (honest question)

The absolute control part. The woman would have legal protections afforded any other citizen. The regulations specifically say she was not to be treated as a slave.

Okay. I was going to ask you in what ways it differed, but I did some research myself. Women are still treated like they are inferior, but not the same as slaves.

---

(November 13, 2012 at 12:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: But to take this little gem semi-seriously, it isn't the proclamation that one's opinion is correct that is troubling, but the failure to follow through with a compelling reason that it is correct.

This.

(November 13, 2012 at 12:35 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Can you provide another method that is better, and a rational reasoning as to why?

Of course not, as it's subjective. Note that you haven't rationally shown utilitarianism to be better than other systems. you can try, but your justifications will at some point include subjective components.

Quote:You bring up an interesting point. Morals evolved to help groups survive, but in the distant past, groups were relatively small and didn't inclue outsiders. This much is still true to an extent today, but is beginning to become less so. At what point can we simply accept other people as human beings and get past our 'outsider' prejudice?

When there are no differences among us I suppose, i.e. probably never. Consider that UK law on forced marriage. Suppose you're a UK citizen who opposes forced marriage. Immigrants (outsiders) who consider forced marriage acceptable move in and practice it. Do you pass the law, or simply accept them as human beings?

---

(November 13, 2012 at 12:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: But to take this little gem semi-seriously, it isn't the proclamation that one's opinion is correct that is troubling, but the failure to follow through with a compelling reason that it is correct.

If you have a compelling reason that a position is correct, then it's not an opinion. Challenging someone to prove that their opinion is correct is just a display of your own ignorance.

---

(November 13, 2012 at 12:56 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Maybe, but would it be right?

It would be subjective, like your current position.

Quote:Suffering unnecesarily is generally bad; can we agree on this first point?

No, it's too vague. Be more specific, and consider that I'll ask about your own life to see if your position is ad hoc.

(November 13, 2012 at 1:08 pm)John V Wrote: If you have a compelling reason that a position is correct, then it's not an opinion.

Implying that you have a compelling reason that a position is correct isn't quite the same as providing that compelling reason, now is it?

Quote:Challenging someone to prove that their opinion is correct is just a display of your own ignorance.

I didn't ask anyone to prove anything, I'd just like to see those "compelling reasons"....but I'm going to give you kudos for this for the sheer dripping irony of having this statement follow the previous one....