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

[Tsun Tsu]

[quote='Tsun Tsu' pid='786666' dateline='1414729410']
Because it violates the most helpless and weakest of us, but I find rape itself an immoral personal violation regardless of innocent and helpless natures. How about you... why do you find it immoral?

If violation of only the helpless and weakest constitute rape, then is rape of someone strong and powerful ok?

You know that's not what I said whatsoever. I went on in the very same post to say ALL rape is wrong.

As I said before, morality is a human construct for the better progress of our society. In pedophilia, an adult harms a person(child) both mentally and physically when they are not developed enough for sex. This act harms the child on many different levels, and is in turn detrimental to the progress of our society and us as a species. If the physical and mental capacity of a 6yr old human child enabled it to have sex without any harmful effects, then it wouldn't be considered immoral. Thus it is dependent on our human biology, not a universal law.

So you think rape is fine as long as someone is capable of having sex physically and mentally and emotionally?

And do you agree with me there is never a time that it is good? And if you agree with me, then you do realize you are now believing in a moral absolute. How does one explain the existence of moral absolutes (aka also universal truths)?

Again, don't jump to conclusions like that. Rape is considered a crime because it is harmful to us and the society as per the current conditions, thus it is not good. If in a weird hypothetical situation, getting raped was the only way to, let's say, cure cancer or cure a mental disorder, then it wouldn't be considered immoral.

But rape doesn't heal cancer... so when it is actually wrong?

Just because something only applies to us humans doesn't make it universal when it doesn't apply to other animals, unless you consider the humans to be the sole species comprising this entire universe.

We are speaking of it being universally and absolutely wrong to rape a human. I frankly believe its wrong to rape sheep and dogs too, but for the sake of simple conversation I am limiting this to humans :p

So when is it good for a HUMAN to rape a HUMAN, or is it absolutely wrong universally in spite of opinion?

[The Grand Nudger]

You know that's not what I said whatsoever.

-all of a sudden this matters to you?

[Tsun Tsu]

We know you don't believe in universal morality, or universal/absolute truth, you've been clear on that.

Excellent, good, good. Now, you understand that even though I do not believe, that this is not really a comment upon reality? Correct? That this is a statement that is descriptive of me? I don't subscribe to that position because I posses no moral absolutes no "higher truths", nor have I ever seen any offered, in the history of mankind (that is available to me) - and I don't think that you're going to be the person to crack that door open tonight...here at AF. Understandable, right? Are you, personally, in possession of any such truths or absolutes?

I believe we are living under absolute truths whether one recognizes it or not... so if embracing these already existing truths constitute being "in possession" of them then yes, I am. You choose not to embrace them, possess them, promote them, and youre allowed.

If youd like to post again, instead of not saying anything on topic you might explain when you think rape is good? ...or simply admit it is universally absolutely a moral wrong regardless of opinion, and that this truth transcends the human race.

nor would either give us any insight as to whether or not there are moral absolutes, or absolute truths of any kind. Try staying on your own topic before insisting that others do so, eh?

The very topic of this thread demonstrates the concept of universal truth as it applies to rape... it is ALWAYS wrong to rape. You disagree, but you have no example, so I am only left with considering the probabilities that you are intentionally evading and attempting to derail because you cant bring yourself to actually back your statement with actual examples.

I am not intimidated to give examples of my belief, ask me anything as pertains to this, I don't care at all, why are you intimidated?

.

---

You know that's not what I said whatsoever.

-all of a sudden this matters to you?

BTW... you forgot to answer these:

So you think rape is fine as long as someone is capable of having sex physically and mentally and emotionally?

and

But rape doesn't heal cancer... so when it is actually wrong?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

In what case? In the case of Hitler v LA Lakers et al? Or Mr Wolverine v Mrs Wolverine?

You want me to say rape is good, I get it. But you're going to have to be more sophisticated, because your rhetorical thrust is thoroughly transparent.

I've given you two examples where I thought rpae might have a beneficial outcome. Are those good to you, in a moral sense?

So then in your view rape is only wrong for those who deem it so? It is not wrong in and of itself?

I think it is wrong in and of itself. But I don't possess the keys to the abstract. My judgement isn't perfect. Is yours? Do you think rape is wrong all the time? What if rape is the criminally adjudicated punishment for a rapist? What if rape is the only way the yellow-bearded crocodile can avoid extinction?

Is killing always wrong? What if you're killing someone because you're starving to death? What if you're killing someone because of your flagpole rag? What if you're killing someone because they're trying to kill you?

You see, morality isn't as didactic as you wish it to be -- and you obviously have an agenda you're pushing, you're not conducting a study, or else you'd quit advocating a position and simply take answers -- morality is a complex thing, no matter how much you would deny that.

If this is so, do you support forcing your view on society or do you believe we should allow rape?

Anyone literate in English would understand my answer, already given ("I don't consider myself the arbiter of everyone's morality.") Are you illiterate in English? Do you need this explained to you? Surely you're intelligent enough to derive the implications of that statement and understand that I don't think I should force my own opinions onto society at large ... aren't you?

Is it possible to violate matter and chemical reaction morally?

I'm going to take a guess and say that you're taking Phi 101 in your first semester. You haven't gotten to Phi 104, where you learn about things like fallacies (category error, in this quote).

And I will reiterate my earlier point: you're not conducting a study, or else you'd quit advocating a position and simply take answers.

Your obvious advocacy belies your intent. You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

[The Grand Nudger]

I believe we are living under absolute truths whether one recognizes it or not...

What you believe, just like what I don't, is irrelevant to the question. Only what either of us can demonstrate will do, if the subject is absolute truth, or moral absolutes. Are you prepared to make such a demonstration?

so if embracing these already existing truths constitute being "in possession" of them then yes, I am. You choose not to embrace them, possess them, promote them, and youre allowed.

Then demonstrate their veracity.

The very topic of this thread demonstrates the concept of universal truth as it applies to rape... it is ALWAYS wrong to rape.

Demonstrate that this is so.

You disagree, but you have no example, so I am only left with considering the probabilities that you are intentionally evading and attempting to derail because you cant bring yourself to actually back your statement with actual examples.

LOL...and he just got done bitching about what he didn't say. I've not offered you my opinion on the matter. You don't know whether or not I agree or disagree - and this is, of course, irrelevant. You don't need to know, and this knowledge would not help us determine whether or not there were moral absolutes or absolute truths.

[Aoi Magi]

So you think rape is fine as long as someone is capable of having sex physically and mentally and emotionally?

Yes because if someone is ready on all three of those fronts, then it is not rape but consensual sex. If you rape someone, that implies they are not capable of accepting it mentally or emotionally or physically or all three of those.

But rape doesn't heal cancer... so when it is actually wrong?

We are speaking of it being universally and absolutely wrong to rape a human. I frankly believe its wrong to rape sheep and dogs too, but for the sake of simple conversation I am limiting this to humans :p

So when is it good for a HUMAN to rape a HUMAN, or is it absolutely wrong universally in spite of opinion?

I think we have very different definitions for the universe.

Rape is considered a crime because it is wrong as per our current society, if there were any good aspects of it, those would either be listed as exceptions or the law would have been changed. That's why I mentioned it to be a "hypothetical situation", but can you guarantee that no hypothetical situation like the one I mentioned can ever arise? Since rape is a recognized crime, I guess you are having a hard time thinking otherwise, so let's take a different scenario.

Do you think killing animals for food is moral?
Do you think killing plants for food is moral?

[Thumpalumpacus]

So your view is that rape is not universally and absolutely ALWAYS wrong despite what the human race may think or say, and that it is completely dependent upon the number of people believing it to be wrong....

Sloppy thinking. Just because one might think an action is right doesn't mean that one ascribes the rectitude of the action to the social mores around him.

---

Im truly glad you bring up how this may "feel". I think its honest to ask yourself why you "feel" this?

I called it on page 4:

I'm objecting that your example is emotionally charged, which heightens the possibility of sloppy answers and sloppy argumentation.

You deliberately used this emotionally-charged question.

---

No one needs to do any such thing. You have made a claim. Now do work.

So you disagree with me that rape is always wrong, but youre not willing to stand on this and provide an example? Whats there for me to work to prove then? According to my stats, not a single atheist believes that rape is absolutely and universally wrong despite opinion, time, or space. Also according to my stats, nearly everyone in the world disagrees. Iv not found a single theist of any type or religion that agrees with the atheist view on this

[Emphasis added -- Parks]

You apparently haven't read the Bible.

[SteelCurtain]

Why are you calling me a liar?? I AM compiling information and stats. You call me a liar why then when you don't know anything about me? You don't know I research and write, you don't know about the fact I do radio internet talk shows, and you don't know I instruct. I suggest asking one about one's self before accusing them out of some paranoia.... but I'm happy to forgive it this time... if you have anything to ask me, ask me or go to admin and ask THEM to check me out ...no more accusation though, not only is it unethical, I would assume its against the rules here eh?

1) Your behavior here, clearly arguing the theist position, would seriously undermine any 'data' you were collecting. I never said you didn't lecture or write or research. Also, if you were actually collecting statistics, your poll would be a little more representative.

2) Stating my opinion about your motives here is not against the rules. I don't believe you're here to 'collect statistics,' I believe you are here because you think you have some unassailable 'proof' of god, and the more you post, the more it seems we'll get to that sooner rather than later.

We still look back and say they were wrong... 90 percent of us do that is. Would you agree with the 90? And IF you were the last man on earth, would it be good then for you to rape the last woman who was unwilling?
Also... how is it an atheist can assume that one can violate matter and electrical impulses? In the end wouldn't an atheist be forced to admit that there is no real violation?

I feel like I clearly answered the first question, so I'll move past that. And yes, if the options are: humanity goes extinct or I force a woman to have sex with me, then yes, I believe that would be the moral option, even if it would be repulsive to me.

And please drop the whole "matter and electrical impulses" gambit. It is a gross oversimplification. We are made of matter and our neurons fire with electrical impulses. I doubt even you would dare argue against that. What is your point---that because atheists don't believe in the supernatural, that we don't think there is any meaning to life?

I wasn't aware there was a ritual involved with circumcision. Have you observed these rituals?

Really? A prescribed ceremony performed according to religious rules? The circumcision is the rite.

Genesis 17:10-13, Leviticus 12:3.

Ever heard of a Jewish Mohel?

[Zen Badger]

In another thread you made the statement "murder is wrong" as being a moral absolute.

In this thread you are asking if "rape is wrong." is a moral absolute.

A question for you to ponder.

If a woman kills the man who is raping her, is she morally wrong?

[pocaracas]

As far as I'm concerned, I'm indifferent to whether it's good or bad to rape a sheep.
Some people may be grossed by it, but then again, many are grossed by looking at certain members of the human population... certain obese members....
Is something gross immoral?

So if I understand you correctly, your opinion is that raping sheep is neither good nor bad. Am I correct?

And how about human to human... is it ALWAYS wrong or sometimes Good? And could you provide an example of the "good" rape, if you are of the opinion that it is sometimes good?

Thank you

You're welcome...
Now I think it is the time to define things...
Things like "good" and "bad".

To me, under the context of human morality, "good" can be defined as that which benefits the species, as a whole.
And "bad" is the opposite, that which depreciates the species.

In the present-day context of 7 billion people, abortion is non-consequential or can even be a good thing.
Rape is seen as bad, because we care for the individual's psychological well-being and raping does tend to wreck it. We want the human population to be as well as possible, so we wouldn't want such harm to come to any of the members.

In the context of a worldwide population of a few hundreds, abortion is seen as bad, while rape can be an opportunity to have one more child in the belly on an uncooperative woman, which can be good, as she's likely to become a cooperative mother.

Also, a few hundreds of years ago, morality would apply only to the in-group, the family group, the tribe... the country. Anyone out of this group would be the others and would not be seen as equal human beings. You still see this in the caste system of India.
The other group, the bad group, is to treated like animals, kill those who threaten the in-group (the males), take the women to become future mothers of the in-group (even if uncooperative, and indoctrinate the children into either becoming members of the in-group, or slaves.

Which brings us to the topic of slavery... is it good or bad?
Once more, nowadays, where we are concerned with the well-being of everyone, it's wrong to have slaves.
But in the olden times, it was granted and often-times the slaves were content to be at the service of their masters.

Moving on, why would the existence of universally accepted rules of human behavior toward each other be a hint to a universal law-giver?
Couldn't evolution have shaped those?
Like we see in lions... regardless of the pack, the behavior always follows certain patterns... why would we posit those behavioral patterns on some external law-giver?