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

[emilynghiem]

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.