(December 8, 2014 at 2:38 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Ugh, don't know how many times I have to say this.. I'm not now (or ever) talking about an inherent property of reality that bestows rights into humans, I'm speaking from a moral system that values human wellbeing.

And I don't know how many times I need to say that there are other moral systems and you can't demonstrate that yours is better than the others.

Quote:If you value human wellbeing, confiscating the agency of someone over their own body is monstrous.

Do you think the father taking agency away from the woman is moral?

First, again, you presume that there's something to take away.

Second, from your own goal of well-being, yes, it could certainly be better for the girl's long-term well-being to have the father make certain decisions for her. When I was a teen I put drugs into my body and got a girl pregnant. My well-being would likely have been enhanced if my parents had exercised more control over my body.

I'm sorry you have such a relativistic view of morality.

And I asked you about this specific situation. After a woman was raped, do you think it's moral for her father to force her to marry her rapist?

(December 8, 2014 at 2:59 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I'm sorry you have such a relativistic view of morality.

To date no one's shown me an alternative.

Quote:And I asked you about this specific situation. After a woman was raped, do you think it's moral for her father to force her to marry her rapist?

No, I don't.

Wonderful to hear.

I still don't understand the problem you have with acknowledging certain choices in any moral question or situation are objectively better for those involved than other choices.

(December 8, 2014 at 3:08 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Wonderful to hear.

I still don't understand the problem you have with acknowledging certain choices in any moral question or situation are objectively better for those involved than other choices.

What you don't understand - or pretend not to understand - is that human well-being is not the only possible measure of morality, or the objectively correct measure of morality.

Further, you don't follow your own approach.

For sake of this particular argument, suppose we're dealing with a situation of rape, not seduction.

The father is better off with the payment than without.

The rapist is better off making a payment and possibly getting married than being killed or imprisoned.

The girl is worse off.

So, 2 out of 3 have greater well-being by application of this law.

Your morality seems to be based more on individual autonomy and the harm principle than on well-being.

(December 8, 2014 at 3:24 pm)alpha male Wrote: For sake of this particular argument, suppose we're dealing with a situation of rape, not seduction.

The father is better off with the payment than without.

The rapist is better off making a payment and possibly getting married than being killed or imprisoned.

The girl is worse off.

So, 2 out of 3 have greater well-being by application of this law.

Your morality seems to be based more on individual autonomy and the harm principle than on well-being.

And if the rapist gets punished, also two are better off. The only one suffering would be the rapist and not the innocent party as in your example.

(December 8, 2014 at 3:26 pm)abaris Wrote: And if the rapist gets punished, also two are better off. The only one suffering would be the rapist and not the innocent party as in your example.

If you consider the woman better off by not being married, then the best solution is for the father to take the bride price but not give the daughter in marriage. All are better off that way.

No, you're making the problem of assuming that any given negative and any given positive are the same in weight, which they obviously are not unless you're so relativistic that you think getting your toes stepped on is just as negative as being murdered (or equating the father getting some silver to the woman's control of her own body).

Secondly, one can look at that situation and extrapolate a few questions and answers. To list some of them..

1) Would society (and the humans living in it) increase in wellbeing if rapists were not jailed for their crimes? Obviously not.
2) Would victims of rape experience an increase in wellbeing if they were forced to marry the rapist? Obviously not.
3) Would society be more stable or less stable under a rule that someone can obtain a wife by raping a woman, or at least escape any sort of punishment for rape besides paying some silver? Obviously less stable.


These are questions that are so obvious I'm rather unsure of why you claim we have absolutely no moral sense without a sky-god. Even just looking at it impersonally and selfishly, one would want to create a system in which (using the same example) if one's own daughter was raped, one would be at least somewhat okay with the rammifications for the rapist, and for one's daughter. And I don't know about you, but getting some silver from my daughter's rapist and simply refusing to give your daughter to him does not seem like a moral system in any sense.

(December 8, 2014 at 3:31 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: No, you're making the problem of assuming that any given negative and any given positive are the same in weight, which they obviously are not unless you're so relativistic that you think getting your toes stepped on is just as negative as being murdered (or equating the father getting some silver to the woman's control of her own body).

I was keeping it simple as weighting is also subjective, but I agree that ideally well-being would be weighted.

Quote:Secondly, one can look at that situation and extrapolate a few questions and answers. To list some of them..

1) Would society (and the humans living in it) increase in wellbeing if rapists were not jailed for their crimes? Obviously not.

And again, society does not need to be the unit of measure regarding well-being. The unit of measure could be the entire universe, or all life, or all humans, or the nation, or a tribe, or a gang, or the self.

Quote:Even just looking at it impersonally and selfishly, one would want to create a system in which (using the same example) if one's own daughter was raped, one would be at least somewhat okay with the rammifications for the rapist, and for one's daughter. And I don't know about you, but getting some silver from my daughter's rapist and simply refusing to give your daughter to him does not seem like a moral system in any sense.

And yet, unless you think the law actually was given by God, then it was created by men who did indeed think this was a moral system. You shot yourself in the foot with that argument.

(December 8, 2014 at 3:44 pm)alpha male Wrote: And yet, unless you think the law actually was given by God, then it was created by men who did indeed think this was a moral system. You shot yourself in the foot with that argument.

Actually it shoots a big hole in the foot of people claiming this to still be the pinnacle of morality. We simply accept these to be bronze age laws by semi nomadic paternalistic tribes. We should be over this by now.