(February 19, 2015 at 10:43 pm)Losty Wrote: [
That's the thing...it's about human responsibility not animal rights. Otherwise we'd have to arrest animals for violating each others' rights.

Why would you feel we have a responsibility to interfere?
However we, as humans, are responsible for our own behavior and incur a duty to not harm when possible.
I consider causing suffering in other self aware organisms to be harm.

(February 19, 2015 at 10:46 pm)JuliaL Wrote:

(February 19, 2015 at 10:34 pm)Losty Wrote: I don't believe in animal rights or animal morality. The concept makes no sense to me.

You'll have to define your understanding of 'rights' and 'morality' to me for this conversation to be meaningful.

I'll take a swing at my definitions:

Rights are protected activities or properties of the subject individual which, if externally infringed upon, such infringement would constitute a moral wrong.

Morality is a system of value in which actions or properties can be ranked as better or worse, more right or wrong.

With rights come responsibilities. Animals cannot be held responsible for their actions. Maybe one duck doesn't enjoy being raped by another duck, but that doesn't make it immoral for the duck rapist because it's a duck.... it doesn't have the mental capacity to understand right and wrong and cannot be held responsible for it's actions.

---

(February 19, 2015 at 10:50 pm)JuliaL Wrote:

(February 19, 2015 at 10:43 pm)Losty Wrote: [
That's the thing...it's about human responsibility not animal rights. Otherwise we'd have to arrest animals for violating each others' rights.

Why would you feel we have a responsibility to interfere?
However we, as humans, are responsible for our own behavior and incur a duty to not harm when possible.
I consider causing suffering in other self aware organisms to be harm.

That is my entire point. It is not the right of an animal to not be harmed, but rather the responsibility of a human being to not harm animals.

Hear losty, she speaks like a true wise lady (no sarcasm intended, that's the reply I'd give)

(February 19, 2015 at 10:53 pm)Losty Wrote: With rights come responsibilities.

Why?

Quote:That is my entire point. It is not the right of an animal to not be harmed, but rather the responsibility of a human being to not harm animals.

Considering your right/responsibility relationship as a unit then can you be restated without alteration of meaning to say that, "the animal has a right not to be harmed by a human?" .

"The moment we admit that consciousness is the context in which any discussion of values makes sense, we must admit that there are facts to be known about how the experience of conscious creatures can change—and these facts can be studied, in principle, with the tools of science. "
-Sam Harris

I think he's got a pretty good point there. Animals included in that lot.

---

(February 19, 2015 at 9:16 pm)emilynghiem Wrote:

(February 19, 2015 at 8:57 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Murder can be morally acceptable if it constitutes self-defense - Either I kill the guy or he kills me, I don't have a choice.

Rape is always wrong because there's no circumstance that obligates me to rape someone - And please don't bring a magical, almost impossible to happen scenario, I don't care - 99%-100% rapes are not out of self-defense.

I'm with rexbecca

Hi Dystopia
What I got was the question is
WHY is it wrong, how can you explain it without
injecting biased language or reasoning that isn't universal to all people.

Universally, or to all people? Do you mean in an absolute sense that does not require the existence of people or, are you looking for an objective epistemological foundation for rejecting the act of rape in principle? Try to nail that down...

(February 19, 2015 at 11:00 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote:

---

"The moment we admit that consciousness is the context in which any discussion of values makes sense, we must admit that there are facts to be known about how the experience of conscious creatures can change—and these facts can be studied, in principle, with the tools of science. "
-Sam Harris

---

I think he's got a pretty good point there. Animals included in that lot.

And at this, the self aware individual, I draw the line where morality applies.
I do not consider rocks, trees or flatworms self aware and so they cannot experience better/worse, good/bad, right/wrong. As soon as an individual knows it exists, it can suffer consciously. I am against suffering, specially my suffering.

I think the topic of rape comes up because of the presumption that we all agree. The other two similar topics are the Holocaust and torturing babies for fun. If you want to discuss the foundations of morality without having to first negotiate to achieve an example something that everyone in the conversation agrees is wrong, then you start with one of those three.

I'm sorry that it caused discomfort.

(February 19, 2015 at 8:57 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Rape is always wrong because there's no circumstance that obligates me to rape someone - And please don't bring a magical, almost impossible to happen scenario, I don't care - 99%-100% rapes are not out of self-defense.

Mybold.

Don't bring emotion to a logic fight.
The OP asked if rape was ALWAYS wrong.
What is the minimum number of black swans does one have to show to prove the statement "ALL swans are white." to be false.

Exactly one.

Emotion doesn't invalidate my point, because I can remain logically coherent even after an emotional point - In fact I can spit out an emotional yet logically valid point without any problems. Care to elucidate me?

Emotion can be present and my point remain logical, one doesn't invalidate the other - For example bullying is an emotional topic for me but I can remain logical and present rational arguments against bullying

Fuck it. I'm not going to quit posting here just because I got upset.

Had the question been "Should rape be made legal?", then I don't think anyone here would've answered "yes". And in fact, I haven't seen one post here trying to justify rape. What I was saying is that whatever criteria you put to determine whether something is morally right or wrong, the rapist is still going to disagree. It does not mean I think he is justified in that. I still, for all practical purposes, see rape as always wrong (like I said in my first response).

The question posed in the OP was a philosophical question. So I answered in that sort of framework.

Anyhow, I apologize for harming all members who got triggered by my posts. I want to make it very clear that was not my intention and that I was just trying to answer it from a purely logical perspective (in my view at least). With my answers, I failed to empathize with those who been through bad experiences in life related to this matter, and I apologize as well to Rebecca for the misattribution regarding lack of objectivity.