RE: Christians celebrate rape, torture, slavery and genocide.
November 13, 2012 at 12:35 pm
(This post was last modified: November 13, 2012 at 12:45 pm by Darkstar.)
(November 13, 2012 at 12:26 pm)John V Wrote:(November 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Called it^Er, seeing as the quote of mine is from post 228, that was a pretty easy call.
EDIT: Next page? Called it in post 229.
Uh, yeah...I started typing that response before you posted, but finished it after you posted, so...yeah...
John V Wrote:Darkstar Wrote:Because a culture did it automatically makes it okay?No. OTOH, because another culture in another time calls it rape does not automatically make it so.
Perhaps whether or not it was rape should not be the question. They didn't call it rape because forcing your wife into sex was legal; we would call it rape because that isn't legal here. The better question is which definition of rape is better?
John V Wrote:Darkstar Wrote:What about human sacrifices, are they okay too? Tell me, if someone is forced to 'marry' someone else, and that someone has absolute control over them, sexually and otherwise, is that person not basically a slave, regardless of what it is called?Call it what you like, but as that isn't true in this case, it's irrelevant.
Which part isn't true? (honest question)
The comparison I intended to make with the first sentence would be something akin to: If human sacrifice wasn't called murder, then is it not immoral?
(November 13, 2012 at 12:28 pm)John V Wrote: It's interesting that you're basically arguing that your opinion is correct and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Yet, you criticize God for doing the same.See below.
John V Wrote:(November 13, 2012 at 12:26 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Morality is subjective, but how subjective is it? Is even the golden rule completely null and void? I don't think so. The golden rule has a rational basis (with the exception of masochists) in that it is beneficial for both parties.You're arguing utilitarianism, which can to some extent be objective. However, it is completely subjective to declare utilitarianism to be superior to any other method.
Can you provide another method that is better, and a rational reasoning as to why? Does any other method have even a little objectivity in it?
Utilitarianism
John V Wrote:Darkstar Wrote:Of course, even this is not 100% objective, but it is a very good rule of thumb. If one cannot even understand the merits of the golden rule, then that person may as well be amoral. Is murdering someone's family, kidnapping them, and putting them in a situation in which they must submit to their captor "in everything" (including sex) perfectly okay because morality is subjective?No. Neither does your calling it rape make it so.
Depends on the legal definition. I'll drop the 'rape' and instead move to whether forced sex is immoral or not.
John V Wrote:Darkstar Wrote:Perhaps by their flawed understanding. Now, just because morality is subjective does not mean that we cannot ever claim to have superior/better developed morals to a certain culture.Well, yes, that's what it means.
Quote:Yes, there are many instances in which we cannot, but there are a few cases. If we are seeking to cause the least amount of harm, and cause harm to the least number of people, then this is not the way to go.See above on utilitarianism.
Quote:If we are not, then what are morals for?They're frequently for the strengthening of a particular society, with no or little regard for the welfare of outsiders.
You bring up an interesting point. Morals evolved to help groups survive, but in the distant past, groups were relatively small and didn't inclue outsiders. This much is still true to an extent today, but is beginning to become less so. At what point can we simply accept other people as human beings and get past our 'outsider' prejudice?
