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

[emilynghiem]

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.

He's arguing that the action classified as rape will be looked at subjectively. It may be the case that in the rapists mind he may think he was seduced or that he was entitled and justify the rape to himself as moral. He's not trying to redefine rape or argue against how we classify rape.

I was comparing the difference to show the added element in rape,
not just the action itself, but the act of violating the consent of another person.

So that's why it's not equal. "feeling of being entitled" is the problem
CAUSING them to violate the consent of the other person.

You can have a feeling but that doesn't mean you have the right to act on it to VIOLATE the consent of the other person. Yes their feelings can be counted equally valid, and still that does not apply to the action that must be consensual. You don't have to insult or judge him for his feelings, to still say the action part has to be consensual.

As for "being seduced" or some other action on the part of the target,
that is answerable as a separate abuse if this is for unfair reasons.

That is not justification for overriding consent to commit rape. If she manipulated him or he manipulated her, or both,
they both have to resolve that in itself. It doesn't justify forcing sex that isn't mutual agreed to.
(in fact, if they are having such issues, they REALLY should NOT be having sex since they can't even communicate what is yes and no.)

No matter what you put on the two sides of the scale, for his reasons and feelings, or what she was doing on the other,
if the two do NOT agree on the action, then it doesn't matter.

the two sides of the scale can still be respected equally, without imposing moral judgment, and still come out to NO the choice of sex is not mutual.
because the two parties do not agree on that action.

Yes, you can still respect all the feelings and justifications on either side for why they want or don't want sex, and treat them equally.

But in a consensus on whether to have sex, the answer has to be agreed upon, and if it is no, it is no.