(February 19, 2015 at 12:29 am)Irrational Wrote: No, no, I didn't ask you what's an alternative for would-be rapist to indulge themselves in instead.

You said rape is wrong no matter what society says ... and your reason was because it affects those who are raped, right? What within the nature of this so-called objective morality dictates that you only consider how the raped feel about this? What is the reason you won't consider the rapist's feelings about rape in spite of you implying that morality is objective (and not subjective)?

Not sure if I'm making sense with my question.

Hi @Irrational
let me take a swing at this
I agree that if you are considering the wishes of the rapist
equally as the wishes of the target, that can start at equal.
but then to agree where these meet
it is wrong for them to conflict REGARDLESS,
yes, you can objectively say the conflict is wrong and
not specify one side or the other.

So the moral thing would be to have a consensus
between the two, which if the target doesn't want the
sexual interaction, then the rapist has to work through
this issue and change what their will is so it is agreed on NO.

If the target willingly changes, then they COULD agree,
but the labels are already set up to IMPLY
that the rapist has some added intent NOT EQUAL to
the target's will; ie if the rapist's will is to VIOLATE
the will of the target, that's not equal because the target
does NOT have equal will to VIOLATE the rapist's
but is just DEFENDING the will of the target from violation.

Irrational in order to be equal there would have to be CLEARLY
no UNEQUAL intent on the side of the person who would otherwise
commit rape. you'd have to start at NEUTRAL such as a husband
and wife and the husband WANTS to have sex, but had no intent
of violating his wife's will. So they work it out where they either
have sex or they postpone it for later when she is willing or can.
If he were to force himself on her, that would be rape.
And No, it would not be equal if part of his will is to violate hers
and she isn't trying to violate his but merely defend her own will.

so the two wills are not equal once they cross that line
where one will deliberately seeks not to respect the other will.
that throws off the equality of wills.

(February 19, 2015 at 7:33 pm)emilynghiem Wrote:

(February 19, 2015 at 12:29 am)Irrational Wrote: No, no, I didn't ask you what's an alternative for would-be rapist to indulge themselves in instead.

You said rape is wrong no matter what society says ... and your reason was because it affects those who are raped, right? What within the nature of this so-called objective morality dictates that you only consider how the raped feel about this? What is the reason you won't consider the rapist's feelings about rape in spite of you implying that morality is objective (and not subjective)?

Not sure if I'm making sense with my question.

Hi @Irrational
let me take a swing at this
I agree that if you are considering the wishes of the rapist
equally as the wishes of the target, that can start at equal.
but then to agree where these meet
it is wrong for them to conflict REGARDLESS,
yes, you can objectively say the conflict is wrong and
not specify one side or the other.

So the moral thing would be to have a consensus
between the two, which if the target doesn't want the
sexual interaction, then the rapist has to work through
this issue and change what their will is so it is agreed on NO.

If the target willingly changes, then they COULD agree,
but the labels are already set up to IMPLY
that the rapist has some added intent NOT EQUAL to
the target's will; ie if the rapist's will is to VIOLATE
the will of the target, that's not equal because the target
does NOT have equal will to VIOLATE the rapist's
but is just DEFENDING the will of the target from violation.

Irrational in order to be equal there would have to be CLEARLY
no UNEQUAL intent on the side of the person who would otherwise
commit rape. you'd have to start at NEUTRAL such as a husband
and wife and the husband WANTS to have sex, but had no intent
of violating his wife's will. So they work it out where they either
have sex or they postpone it for later when she is willing or can.
If he were to force himself on her, that would be rape.
And No, it would not be equal if part of his will is to violate hers
and she isn't trying to violate his but merely defend her own will.

so the two wills are not equal once they cross that line
where one will deliberately seeks not to respect the other will.
that throws off the equality of wills.

He's arguing that the action classified as rape will be looked at subjectively. It may be the case that in the rapists mind he may think he was seduced or that he was entitled and justify the rape to himself as moral. He's not trying to redefine rape or argue against how we classify rape.

I think there's some confusion over what's intended here by the use of the word "objective" within this context.

Something can be objectively wrong if the process you use to come to that conclusion is logical, supported by evidence, and free of fallacy. If one is objective in the process of how they come to know what they are claiming to be true, there's nothing wrong with using it to describe the epistemological process as objective in that sense. I believe this to be the best application of the word.

I am not using it ontologically by any means. I'm not saying there is one answer to a moral question in any absolute sense of the word at all.
There can be several objectively right answers to a question of morality just like there can be objectively wrong ones. I believe the goal here is to settle on at least one answer that can be identified as objectively right.

(February 19, 2015 at 7:52 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: I think there's some confusion over what's intended here by the use of the word "objective" within this context.

Something can be objectively wrong if the process you use to come to that conclusion is logical, supported by evidence, and free of fallacy. If one is objective in the process of how they come to know what they are claiming to be true, there's nothing wrong with using it to describe the epistemological process as objective in that sense. I believe this to be the best application of the word.

I am not using it ontologically by any means. I'm not saying there is one answer to a moral question in any absolute sense of the word at all.
There can be several objectively right answers to a question of morality just like there can be objectively wrong ones. I believe the goal here is to settle on at least one answer that can be identified as objectively right.

The title of thread asks for absolute moral truths, " Is rape always wrong", To me that would imply one objective answer to the question. In my own morality I can't fathom a situation where it would be moral but that doesn't mean there aren't people who can and do.

(February 18, 2015 at 1:42 pm)wiploc Wrote:

(October 30, 2014 at 7:05 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote: Do absolute MORAL truths exist? Is Rape ALWAYS "wrong"?

Yes.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "absolute," but I'm saying yes.

Quote:For instance: "Rape is ALWAYS wrong" <<<This would be considered a moral truth. Is it universally true?

Rape is always wrong.

Quote: Is it true even if society deemed that rape was perfectly acceptable?

That has nothing to do with it. When slavery was acceptable, it was still wrong.

(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?

Something is wrong if it tends to make people unhappy. You could invent a world in which rape was like going to the dentist (you don't want it now, but you'll thank the perpetrator later). Then, because it wouldn't tend to increase unhappiness, rape wouldn't be wrong.

(October 30, 2014 at 7:16 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote: Would you consider rape to be wrong even for those who deem it acceptable?

Sure.

Quote: And what about advanced life across the universe. If it exists, would rape also be wrong for that society, even if they accept it as normal or "ok"?

Whether people accept something has little to do with whether it is wrong.

Quote: I believe most people are agreeing that morality is subjective.

You haven't even asked about subjectivity. You asked about universality. And it's a weasel word anyway, frequently used for equivocation.

Quote: Rape is wrong for one group, but is acceptable to another. Is this correct?

No, it's absurd.

Quote: So far, in my results from other sites, Theists would regard rape as universally wrong despite those viewing it as acceptable.

Theists believe rape is wrong only when their gods forbid it. They raped without compunction in Kosovo, because their rules changed. They believe murder is universally wrong, and then word comes down that they aren't to suffer a witch to live. Ask Boko Haram what the unchanging universal rules are.

Quote: In other words, theists believe "Universal truth is bigger than society, larger than the universe. They would say it is universally true regardless of dissenting views. Those holding the opposite view are simply wrong".
In this case the theist would say that those regarding rape as acceptable are wrong... it is still an evil or "wrong" thing to do.

Evil or wrong? You don't want to conflate evil with sin. Evil isn't sin, it is the punishment for sin.

Quote: How does the atheist counter this?

Our morality is just as objective as theirs. It is just as universal as theirs. It is at least as rationally justifiable as theirs.

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

As long as you aren't defining terms, and as long as you oppose "subjective" to "universal" rather than to "objective," I'm not worried about you getting too sciency.

I almost perfectly agree with you. And if I were to point out the philosophical difference, people would focus on that and forget the majority agreement, so I will not bother with it. Philosophically, it may be a "big" difference, but practically, it isn't worth bothering about.

Rape is always wrong. When people try to change the meaning of the term "rape" to be something other than what the word means in English, then they might come up with some claim, but then they would no longer be talking about rape.

It is just wrong, so don't do it. Ever. No matter what.

(Of course, coming from me, this level of agreement will likely hurt your standing, so you may wish to distance yourself from my other posts.)

Yes, but this question is incoherent in an ontologically absolute sense. The very definition of rape describes the sexual acts that a human being forced upon another human being against their explicit consent. An ontological truth or an absolute means that something either is or is not true. And this truth would be true in the absence of a mind to perceive it. Something either exists or it does not. If it does, then nothing else has any bearing on the truth behind its "is-ness"

Rape cannot even be rape in the absence of people alone. Rape requires the existence of conscious being to determine it. There is no absolute rape. It's nonsensical to even propose that.

I can't think of a single time when rape wouldn't be wrong. I still don't believe in objective morality.

I guess we're up against semantics now. I would argue that universal, objective morals are an intellectual construction of no consequence. Morals can be as real and important to someone who conceptualizes them as subjective facts rather than as objective facts. I would fall in the subjectivist category myself. But I don't think that takes anything away from moral experience.

The rapist is every bit as despicable to me as he to a moral objectivist. I just don't believe there is an objective standard which should motivate everyone. (That is what a legal system is for.) People vary a lot. Some have weak moral feeling or else it may even be altogether absent. Perhaps psychopaths have a kind of birth defect or perhaps it is just genetic variability with survival value the way those who suffer from Sickle cell anemia suffer less from Malaria.

Now the justice system as the abstraction of community standards of moral behavior is intended to be objective. That is all the objectivity I require in moral matters. To say that rape is illegal and subject to heavy penalties is enough. Unfortunately, in actual practice, victims often suffer twice, once because of the rape itself and again because of the dysfunctional way the legal system actually serves rape victims. The legal system is flawed and rapists are despicable to me. I'm fine with leaving it to each person to say whether they agree. My repugnance toward rape doesn't require that I overstate or misrepresent what is so reprehensible about it.

Is there an Absolute Stinkiness?

(February 19, 2015 at 8:37 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: Is there an Absolute Stinkiness?