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

[Whateverist]

I agree with everything you said DeistP, except that you seem to be granting that a person can reject such "categorical imperatives" as "Life is preferable to death," ..

It's called suicide and people do choose it. Just saying.

[Mudhammam]

I agree with everything you said DeistP, except that you seem to be granting that a person can reject such "categorical imperatives" as "Life is preferable to death," ..

It's called suicide and people do choose it. Just saying.

You cut my quote right before I went on to say, "and still be engaged in rational inquiry..."

Can a person whose solution to anything is suicide be considered by the rest of us to offer a reasonable proposition for each of us to pursue, judging its reasonableness by its utility in how it advances our interests?

[Pizza]

It's called suicide and people do choose it. Just saying.

You cut my quote right before I went on to say, "and still be engaged in rational inquiry..."

Can a person whose solution to anything is suicide be considered by the rest of us to offer a reasonable proposition for each of us to pursue, judging its reasonableness by its utility in how it advances our interests?

Well, there are cases in which I wouldn't want to live in like dying painfully slowly from incurable illness, post-apocalyptic scenarios, being enslaved, or being tortured nonstop. In such cases utility to be had isn't much to care about since the pain would outweigh pleasure and in death there is no pain.

[Mudhammam]

You cut my quote right before I went on to say, "and still be engaged in rational inquiry..."

Can a person whose solution to anything is suicide be considered by the rest of us to offer a reasonable proposition for each of us to pursue, judging its reasonableness by its utility in how it advances our interests?

Well, there are cases in which I wouldn't want to live in like dying painfully slowly from incurable illness, post-apocalyptic scenarios, being enslaved, or being tortured nonstop. In such cases utility to be had isn't much to care about since the pain would outweigh pleasure and in death there is no pain.

I presumed we were talking about general circumstances and behaviors that we would or would not prescribe societies to tolerate on the basis of their effects on individual well-being. Obviously, suicide is debatable in scenarios where no better options are available, a condition not imposed on our debate.

[Losty]

The condition should be implied because it is a very real condition that many human beings are faced with, right?

[Pyrrho]

It's called suicide and people do choose it. Just saying.

You cut my quote right before I went on to say, "and still be engaged in rational inquiry..."

Can a person whose solution to anything is suicide be considered by the rest of us to offer a reasonable proposition for each of us to pursue, judging its reasonableness by its utility in how it advances our interests?

The preference for life over death is not rational. It would be more accurate to call it instinctual, since it isn't a position arrived at through reasoning at all.

When someone decides to kill themselves, that might be called rational, as it is arrived at after some reasoning on the subject (whether flawed or not is irrelevant).

One starts with the instinct to live, and one goes from there. But that starting point is in no way rational. It just is.

(That is, it just is from the way one experiences it. Obviously, from an evolutionary standpoint, the preference for life over death is necessary for the survival of the species; any species that had the opposite preference would die out. This, too, shows that it is not a position derived from reason, as it is something in a species even without much capacity for reason.)

[The Reality Salesman01]

...you seem to be granting that a person can reject such "categorical imperatives" as "Life is preferable to death,"

I'm not sure that the categorical imperative is that "Life is preferable to death". Its to live your life by rules that can be universally applied. One of these rules is that people are means ends in and of themselves and they cannot be used or controlled to serve as means to any other purpose. If the purpose is upholding the rule that "Life is preferable to death, and therefore one ought not be allowed to take their own life", then any attempt to impose this virtue upon this person would require violating their most basic right. If people cannot be used as means to any other end, then their choice to die rather than live cannot be forced on them as a means to uphold a standard that was not set by them.

[MJ the Skeptical]

I can think of a what-if situation of rape where the theist would probably admit it'd be moral to do so, like if Yahweh asked you to rape someone. But otherwise the scenarios would be rare and full of ultimatums, like raping the last female on Earth who refuses to get pregnant or something improbable like that. But in practice, I think everyone would agree rape is wrong but universal truth implies that no caveats can be made, there should always be some small wiggle room with morality. I think history has shown that a bit of wiggle room can get you to the next progressive step forward.

[robvalue]

The latest Bible Reloaded has a lot of insights into how the bible views rape. They mention it a lot, so viewer discretion advised.

http://youtu.be/AWASvP2kGYs

[DeistPaladin]

The latest Bible Reloaded has a lot of insights into how the bible views rape. They mention it a lot, so viewer discretion advised.

I'm not able to watch the video right now but you have a good idea Rob.

I do find secular discussions of what morality is to be very interesting, especially once we move past the Christian apologetic "without Jesus, there is no basis for morality" bullcrap. However, now that we've hashed out among us freethinkers how we view morality, it's fair to turn the same question on the Christians of this forum, particularly the OP if he/she is still around.

Paraphrasing the title of the OP:
Christians only vote please: Do absolute MORAL truths exist? Is Rape ALWAYS "wrong"?

Christians, if you are going to self-righteously demand non-believers account for their basis of morality, it's time for you to examine the splinters in your own eyes.

Matthew 7:3-5 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

If the Bible really is the word of your god, what then is your basis of morality when this book can't even get the moral no-brainers (like slavery, genocide and rape) straight. Cataloging the atrocities in the Bible would be a daunting task and provoke the tl/dr response. So just a taste:

Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

And what is your perfect and just god's law on the matter of rape? If she is betrothed, she must marry her attacker after he pays a fine.

Deut 22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

The Bible even has rules on how to rape your sex slaves taken in war:

Deut 21:11-14 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

So apparently some niceties apply. You have to give her six months to mourn her family that you put to the sword. If you don't enjoy raping her, you have to let her go and not sell her. Maybe that was progressive for the time but if the source is a timeless and wise deity that is supposedly the very fountain of morality, I'm not impressed.

But forget about the Bible. Let's look at the actions of your god for the last 2,000 years. For a moment, let's assume that Jesus is a real god who really is in Heaven and really does watch over us and really cares about our behavior.

Let's also be generous and excuse all the suffering caused by natural calamity. We'll write that off as "stuff happens", "life's a test", "mysterious ways" or whatever your favorite excuse is.

Let's further excuse all the evil that people do to one another. We'll dismiss all that with the "free will" defense.

Let's pay attention only to what has been done by Christian leaders in the name of Christianity. Your god watched from Heaven and did nothing to stop the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the burning of witches, the genocide of Native Americans in both North and South America, and countless other atrocities all the way down to the mundane like the televangelists getting rich off donations from the poor. Your god watches all of that from Heaven and does nothing. He can't seem to be bothered to better instruct his own vicars on this earth.

Frankly, you Christians are in no position to lecture free thinkers on our basis for morality. If your god does exist, he is the least fit being in all the universe to sit in judgement of anyone. It is he who should beg our forgiveness, not the other way around.