Atheists only vote please: Do absolute MORAL truths exist? Is Rape ALWAYS "wrong"?

[The Grand Nudger]

So do you think then that those who find rape acceptable and good are right?

It wouldn't (and doesn't) matter what I think. That hypothetical cultures norms would not be based upon my thoughts. They have no relevance or bearing on the situation as we have described it.

It's not wrong because they deem it acceptable to rape?

-To them. Poorly formed question, of course - for the same reason as last time. Are you taking any of this in or do you have a script, if so, just get to the moneyshot.

Or would you say there is a higher truth that trumps their opinion, and they are still wrong whether anyone recognizes it or not?

If they were wrong, it wouldn't be because of any "higher truth" that I possess. Again, like before, whatever it is I possess, either truth or opinion or -invent a word if you like- it's all irrelevant to the point at hand.

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.

How should I know? Am I in the "higher truth" business? That's an -if- you'll have to turn into an -is-, until then...

(I've always wondered about that phrase, btw..."A higher truth" - how does one go about giving something that attribute? What's a lower truth, is there a scale? Are some truths is just taller than others or is there a shelf? Whats going on here...what's the story?)

[Tsun Tsu]

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.

By universally true, it doesn't matter if rape occurs within our galaxy, it is wrong... outside the universe, it is wrong. For instance, when, where and under what condition is raping a child "good", or is t simply universally wrong?

[quote='Tsun Tsu' pid='786550' dateline='1414718037']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".

[quote=you]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.

Are you on record then as saying that you believe rape in this case is good?

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.

So then in your view rape is only wrong for those who deem it so? It is not wrong in and of itself? If this is so, do you support forcing your view on society or do you believe we should allow rape? Is it possible to violate matter and chemical reaction morally?

[Jenny A]

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.

I think under our current understanding of morals rape is always wrong. But, in the OT's bronze age context perhaps not always recognized as such. Thus, not a universal truth.

The definition of circle on the other hand is the same in any age and it's circumference is always: c=2 * pi * r.

[Aoi Magi]

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?

You don't really read the posts, do you? I specifically mentioned in the same post that you quoted, our human morality doesn't constitute universal truths. For a human adult victimizing a 6yr old child is immoral, but only within human society. A dog for example, is capable of breeding much before it completes 6 years, so for it, that isn't immoral.

[SteelCurtain]

You know, it is really shitty to lie about why you are here. Why do it? It would be perfectly natural do just introduce yourself and say "I'd like to get you guys' take on moral absolutes." Why make up the bullshit about compiling statistics?

As civilization marches on, we seem to come by rules that become etched into our collective ethos. By this I mean that at one time, rape was seen as the spoils of war, a man's right over a woman. No one would have thrown a second glance at it by most accounts. Certain castes were excluded even from the right to claim rape. That was then, this is now. We have a more evolved sense of morality. I would say that in all but some ridiculous hypothetical existential situation (the end of the human race is imminent and it's just me and an unwilling woman left to continue the species), there is no situation where rape is moral.

I say this to point out that things change. There may come a day where war of any kind is seen the same as rape is seen by us today. It may come to a point where people are having conversations asking someone to come up with an exception where dropping bombs is morally acceptable.

I would also say that the ritual mutilation of children's genitals is morally unacceptable. But clearly I am in some sort of minority or other there, and that continues to be (less and less, thank Jaysus) an acceptable thing to do. Would you say that this is morally acceptable?

[JuliaL]

Do you agree with me that it is NEVER good to rape a child, or do you hold it is SOMETIMES good?

I haven't entered the 'unlimited supply game' thread because I've found it too entertaining just to read and I don't think my responses would be nearly as clever as those who've been writing there.

But in a similar vein:
Of course I don't agree with you. Your grasp of the breadth of possible hypotheticals is so limited.

Do you think it would be a positive moral choice to rape a child if the alternative was slow and agonizing torture for every person living on earth today?

[Tsun Tsu]

So do you think then that those who find rape acceptable and good are right?

It wouldn't (and doesn't) matter what I think. That hypothetical cultures norms would not be based upon my thoughts. They have no relevance or bearing on the situation as we have described it.

Then you believe rape is fine for those who deem it as good?

It's not wrong because they deem it acceptable to rape?

-To them. Poorly formed question, of course - for the same reason as last time. Are you taking any of this in or do you have a script, if so, just get to the moneyshot.

I don't understand your script implication. I am asking if rape then is not morally wrong in and of itself then simply because some people view it as good for them? Or alternatively it is always morally wrong... which makes t universally and absolutely wrong. You seem to be saying we cant say its always wrong because some people deem it good.

Or would you say there is a higher truth that trumps their opinion, and they are still wrong whether anyone recognizes it or not?

If they were wrong, it wouldn't be because of any "higher truth" that I possess. Again, like before, whatever it is I possess, either truth or opinion or -invent a word if you like- it's all irrelevant to the point at hand.

Atheists hold that we are nothing more significant than matter and chemical reaction. How is it even possibly to morally violate matter and chemical reaction? I hold that a tree cant morally violate a dog. I disagree that we are nothing more than matter and chemical reaction, and that we can be orally violated, as well as morally violate. An atheist cannot recognize moral violation as I do. Which is why you would have a hard time agreeing "It is universally wrong to rape a child".

It doesn't matter when in time it takes place, or where in space. It doesn't matter if anyone agrees or disagrees. There is a higher truth that trumps all opinion, and part of this truth is that it is NEVER GOOD to rape a child.

How would you counter by offering examples of "good" pedophilia?

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.

How should I know? Am I in the "higher truth" business? That's an -if- you'll have to turn into an -is-, until then...

Then you must be agnostic as opposed to Atheist, if you don't know whether or not Higher Truth exists.

(I've always wondered about that phrase, btw..."A higher truth" - how does one go about giving something that attribute? What's a lower truth, is there a scale? Are some truths is just taller than others or is there a shelf? Whats going on here...what's the story?)

The definition of Higher Truth is simple. It is Truth that transcends anyone's belief in it, anywhere, any time, and is also true regardless of anyone's opinion. So it transcends time space and the will of dissenters and remains true, making the dissenters "wrong".

---

But in a similar vein:
Of course I don't agree with you. Your grasp of the breadth of possible hypotheticals is so limited.

Do you think it would be a positive moral choice to rape a child if the alternative was slow and agonizing torture for every person living on earth today?

No, I don't. I take it you do? Would YOU rape a child to save the world? Would you rape that child to protect just your family? Would you rape it to just save yourself? We must also alternatively ask, at what number of saved lives, does the rape of a child become acceptable to you?

1) To save 1 other person?
2) 2?
3) 10?
4) 50?

In other words, in YOUR opinion, if the rape of a child is wrong but to save the world it is right, Where do you reach the turning point to turn it from "wrong" to "good"? I will even accept an approximation. Or you can change your mind and agree with me that it is always wrong

.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then you believe rape is fine for those who deem it as good?

That's what -they- believe. Focus.

I don't understand your script implication. I am asking if rape then is not morally wrong in and of itself then simply because some people view it as good for them? Or alternatively it is always morally wrong... which makes t universally and absolutely wrong. You seem to be saying we cant say its always wrong because some people deem it good.

We can say whatever we like, as usual. And?

Atheists hold that we are nothing more significant than matter and chemical reaction.

LOL, do they? Hmn, I must not have gotten the memo.

How is it even possibly to morally violate matter and chemical reaction?

Depends on the matter and reactions. As you yourself (irc) mentioned earlier, the rape of a rock is off the table. So I guess you'll have to be a little more scrutinizing in forming these questions.

I hold that a tree cant morally violate a dog.

I would agree.

I disagree that we are nothing more than matter and chemical reaction

We're on the same page still

, and that we can be orally violated, as well as morally violate.

I'll probably need a rephrase here. You disagree that we can be orally violated or morally violate? You disagree with whom?

An atheist cannot recognize moral violation as I do. Which is why you would have a hard time agreeing "It is universally wrong to rape a child".

How do you recognize it? I mean,. it;s pretty easy for me to feel the same gut reaction as you, to recognize the horrid nature of the act. Is that what you think atheists have a hard time grasping, or simply cannot recognize? That would be a very silly thing to say....don't you think?

It doesn't matter when in time it takes place, or where in space. It doesn't matter if anyone agrees or disagrees. There is a higher truth that trumps all opinion, and part of this truth is that it is NEVER GOOD to rape a child.

-golfclaps- Okay, you're not a child rapist? Congratulations on your achievement (however did you manage to pull it off?).

How would you counter by offering examples of "good" pedophilia?

Why would I?

Then you must be agnostic as opposed to Atheist, if you don't know whether or not Higher Truth exists.

The subject of gods doesn't seem, to me, to be an issue of "higher truth". No such knowledge is required for me to be an atheist. I'm comfortable with good old run of the mill truth, no grading system required.

The definition of Higher Truth is simple. It is Truth that transcends anyone's belief in it, anywhere, any time, and is also true regardless of anyone's opinion. So it transcends time space and the will of dissenters and remains true, making the dissenters "wrong".

So....in what way is that different from just plain old truth?

[Mudhammam]

Yes, I agree rape is always wrong. Note the key phrase: "I agree."

[Clueless Morgan]

Can't answer the poll because there's no "I don't know" option.