(October 30, 2014 at 9:17 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:

(October 30, 2014 at 7:14 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote: Would this extend to being wrong for any advanced race anywhere in time or space?

So long as the concept of consent exists, yes.

But as was previously stated, it's not an objective natural law, it's entirely encompassed within the interactions of sentient beings.

I accept your answer just fine, but it differs with your conclusion. You conclude that for all advanced sentient beings rape is wrong, regardless of time location or public opinion. This is a truth you present as being without exception in time or space... making it universally true. How is it that there exists a truth that is larger than every advance civilization in the universe?

---

(October 30, 2014 at 9:25 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 30, 2014 at 9:22 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote: So then... since you don't seem to want to take this seriously, lets narrow the field... Do you agree with me that it is NEVER good to rape a child, or do you hold it is SOMETIMES good?

Not serious? Did you actually read his answer?

Yes, I don't regard the discussion of the rape of a rock as serious Therefore I narrowed it in terms that eliminate the rock from the equation

(October 30, 2014 at 9:41 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote:

(October 30, 2014 at 9:17 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote: So long as the concept of consent exists, yes.

But as was previously stated, it's not an objective natural law, it's entirely encompassed within the interactions of sentient beings.

I accept your answer just fine, but it differs with your conclusion. You conclude that for all advanced sentient beings rape is wrong, regardless of time location or public opinion. This is a truth you present as being without exception in time or space... making it universally true. How is it that there exists a truth that is larger than every advance civilization in the universe?

You seem to be consistently conflating universality as applied by the subject with universality in and of itself.

It's a murky, deep area of the marsh that's being treaded on but your questions keep skipping across only the surface.

I already said that the person making the judgement as to it always being wrong is myself. I did not say that meant it was universally true absent of my particular judgement.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:46 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:

(October 30, 2014 at 9:41 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote: I accept your answer just fine, but it differs with your conclusion. You conclude that for all advanced sentient beings rape is wrong, regardless of time location or public opinion. This is a truth you present as being without exception in time or space... making it universally true. How is it that there exists a truth that is larger than every advance civilization in the universe?

You seem to be consistently conflating universality as applied by the subject with universality in and of itself.

It's a murky, deep area of the marsh that's being treaded on but your questions keep skipping across only the surface.

I already said that the person making the judgement as to it always being wrong is myself. I did not say that meant it was universally true absent of my particular judgement.

So then do you alternatively believe that rape in and of itself is not wrong? It's "wrongness" only depends on ones opinion?

(October 30, 2014 at 10:01 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote:

(October 30, 2014 at 9:46 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote: You seem to be consistently conflating universality as applied by the subject with universality in and of itself.

It's a murky, deep area of the marsh that's being treaded on but your questions keep skipping across only the surface.

I already said that the person making the judgement as to it always being wrong is myself. I did not say that meant it was universally true absent of my particular judgement.

So then do you alternatively believe that rape in and of itself is not wrong? It's "wrongness" only depends on ones opinion?

I find it wrong in and of itself. The victims find it wrong. The perpetrators don't. I think they're assholes. That's how it goes, it's not rocket science.

The reason I don't accept universal truth in terms of morality is actually derived more from epistemology rather than being self-contained within its own branch of philosophy. To declare a universal truth is to declare absolute certainty on the matter. This is not possible. It's the same reason I consider myself an agnostic atheist rather than a gnostic one. I don't think my reasons for disbelieving in gods are lesser than those of a gnostic atheist, similarly, I don't think my reasons for universally considering rape as always wrong within valid contexts are any lesser than somebody that would claim it is universally true objectively speaking.

The difference is I don't assume the position of infallibility.

(October 30, 2014 at 10:13 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:

(October 30, 2014 at 10:01 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote: So then do you alternatively believe that rape in and of itself is not wrong? It's "wrongness" only depends on ones opinion?

I find it wrong in and of itself. The victims find it wrong. The perpetrators don't. I think they're assholes. That's how it goes, it's not rocket science.

The reason I don't accept universal truth in terms of morality is actually derived more from epistemology rather than being self-contained within its own branch of philosophy. To declare a universal truth is to declare absolute certainty on the matter. This is not possible. It's the same reason I consider myself an agnostic atheist rather than a gnostic one. I don't think my reasons for disbelieving in gods are lesser than those of a gnostic atheist, similarly, I don't think my reasons for universally considering rape as always wrong within valid contexts are any lesser than somebody that would claim it is universally true objectively speaking.

The difference is I don't assume the position of infallibility.

Ok then. I do have a further question if you don't mind. You said:

"To declare a universal truth is to declare absolute certainty on the matter. This is not possible"

To declare with absolute certainty that universal truth does not exist, for instance saying it is universally true that rape is wrong, would be to imply that there would be times where rape is NOT wrong. To say "rape is universally not good" is either true, or there are times where it is good. Can you provide an example of rape being "Good" or is it then universally true that it isn't good?

Tautologically, it's a nonsensical question, as "rape" already carries negative baggage..it"s just another way of saying "a -bad- sort of sexual behavior", otherwise you'd just say "sex". However, suppose we found ourselves with a situation where a culture did not develop the concept of consent? They would have no equivalence (/w our concepts) from which to even understand what we were talking about. Stranger cultural disconnects abound - though this one seems rooted in most of us. Nevertheless, in your hypothetical scenario there's one easy hypothetical example. He would still think it to be "univerally wrong", I would, perhaps you would (though I guess I shouldn't presume - care to make the case for rape friend, oh...no? ofc you don't, lol.....) but they (the ubiquitous they)...would not.

This isn't even remotely close to a deep philosophical quandry - there is no leverage. It's ridiculous bullshit we've seen on these boards a hundred times over. It's boring.

(October 30, 2014 at 8:27 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 30, 2014 at 7:12 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: Rape is indeed always wrong. However it is NOT an universal truth.

And the rules for circles don't apply to triangles. So what? Just because something only applies universally to all human moral agents has no bearing on whether it is objectively right or wrong. My but you do like to dance.

Don't make random analogies please. Physical properties and mental constructs are not the same thing.

Rape is wrong, because the term "rape" is used to represent a scenario with a victim and perpetrator/s, which is bad.

Rape IS NOT a universal truth, because the concept of rape doesn't exist in nature, nor is it applicable to all things.

Religion suggests we humans are higher than everything else in nature, and thus whatever moral laws apply to us universally must be the universal truth. But the truth is, we are animals too and since morality doesn't exist in all animals, it isn't a universal thing. Morality IS a subjective concept we humans created to better sustain our societal structure.

If you look at our laws you'll see that there has been many revisions to determine what exactly constitutes "rape", this had to be done, because the concept of "rape" is born from our society and is determined by it.

---

On child abuse, unless you specifically mean pedophilia, it does exist in nature among other species and isn't always immoral in the sense we see it in our society. Several animals, for example bears and snakes, might kill off weaker children so that the mother can survive and the species can progress with the strongest individuals. However in a human society, killing off a slightly deformed child will be treated as murder and highly immoral.

(October 30, 2014 at 10:24 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote:

(October 30, 2014 at 10:13 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote: I find it wrong in and of itself. The victims find it wrong. The perpetrators don't. I think they're assholes. That's how it goes, it's not rocket science.

The reason I don't accept universal truth in terms of morality is actually derived more from epistemology rather than being self-contained within its own branch of philosophy. To declare a universal truth is to declare absolute certainty on the matter. This is not possible. It's the same reason I consider myself an agnostic atheist rather than a gnostic one. I don't think my reasons for disbelieving in gods are lesser than those of a gnostic atheist, similarly, I don't think my reasons for universally considering rape as always wrong within valid contexts are any lesser than somebody that would claim it is universally true objectively speaking.

The difference is I don't assume the position of infallibility.

Ok then. I do have a further question if you don't mind. You said:

"To declare a universal truth is to declare absolute certainty on the matter. This is not possible"

To declare with absolute certainty that universal truth does not exist, for instance saying it is universally true that rape is wrong, would be to imply that there would be times where rape is NOT wrong. To say "rape is universally not good" is either true, or there are times where it is good. Can you provide an example of rape being "Good" or is it then universally true that it isn't good?

I did not say that universal truth does not exist, just that absolute certainty does not. Universal truth may exist, but we could never be absolutely certain to declare it a reality.

And no, for starters, that's a false dichotomy. Saying that it isn't "always wrong" does not mean that there is a situation where it is "good." Not all actions that are not wrong are necessarily good actions, they just aren't wrong ones.

And no, I can't provide an example of it being good because I think it is always wrong in applicable contexts. I've already stated this, this question of yours is already implicitly addressed in my previous post. My views have already been explained and account for your inquiries, but your questions have not adapted outside of their original framework.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:13 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote: You'd be surprised how "sciency" I can get I'm sure

As far as "evoking emotion" I would counter with why that should intimidate? Rape is a reality. And this is to discuss the effects and ramifications of our belief system on society, how it effects our teaching, and how and what is reinforced and emphasized. Summarily it is an examination as to which train of thought is ultimately more beneficial to society.

No one said that your example was intimidating. I'm objecting that your example is emotionally charged, which heightens the possibility of sloppy answers and sloppy argumentation.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:13 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote: Also it is intended to help point out inconsistencies, and possibly even the more controversial end results of our belief systems.

It also holds the possibilities of obscuring them. A rape victim, for instance, may well have their reasoning suborned by the intense emotions brought forth by reconsidering what was obviously traumatic. Expecting the clear light of reason to shine through the fog of emotion strikes me as overly optimistic.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:13 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote: So... it seems to me that the Atheist may have to resolve what brings about a higher moral code if universal truth actually exists... If it is ALWAYS wrong to rape, then this truth is larger than the world...

What does it mean to say that the "truth is larger than the world"? Do you mean to say that the truth exists apart from the world?

The world is about twenty-seven thousand miles at the Equator. How big is this truth of yours?

I think you're making a category error with this prose here.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:13 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote: not made of matter... rape is not a chemical reaction. On the other hand, if one holds that rape is not always bad, then the Atheist is faced with the dilemma of providing an instance where it is "good".

I thought the example I provided was pretty good.

Another instance where it could be considered good is if a species which reproduces by rape is about to go extinct; rape may preserve the biodiversity of the planet.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:13 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote: And how about child abuse?

Is it universally true that child abuse is wrong? Or are there instances where it is "good"?

I can't conceive of any instances where I'd find child abuse morally correct. But I'm not so arrogant as to think that everyone must share my views. I consider it wrong. I don't consider myself the arbiter of everyone's morality.

(October 30, 2014 at 10:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: However, suppose we found ourselves with a situation where a culture did not develop the concept of consent? They would have no equivalence (/w our concepts) from which to even understand what we were talking about. Stranger cultural disconnects abound - though this one seems rooted in most of us. Nevertheless, in your hypothetical scenario there's one easy hypothetical example. He would still think it to be "univerally wrong", I would, perhaps you would (though I guess I shouldn't presume - care to make the case for rape friend, oh...no? ofc you don't, lol.....) but they (the ubiquitous they)...would not.

This isn't even remotely close to a deep philosophical quandry - there is no leverage. It's ridiculous bullshit we've seen on these boards a hundred times over. It's boring.

So do you think then that those who find rape acceptable and good are right? It's not wrong because they deem it acceptable to rape? Or would you say there is a higher truth that trumps their opinion, and they are still wrong whether anyone recognizes it or not? Is there a higher truth that makes rape WRONG or EVIL despite consensus or opinion? If is IS true that they are wrong and rape is wrong regardless, then we have a truth that is universal AND absolute.

---

(October 30, 2014 at 10:31 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: On child abuse, unless you specifically mean pedophilia, it does exist in nature among other species and isn't always immoral in the sense we see it in our society. Several animals, for example bears and snakes, might kill off weaker children so that the mother can survive and the species can progress with the strongest individuals. However in a human society, killing off a slightly deformed child will be treated as murder and highly immoral.

Lets use this example then... Can you say with conviction "pedophilia, victimizing children 6 yrs old and younger is universally wrong"? Or would you disagree with this?