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.

[The Reality Salesman01]

You see how absurd this becomes when we try to apply this Absolute Stuff to other experiences that require conscious experience to give them meaning?

Quite

That doesn't make it absolutely bad ('absolute' as independent of all actors, frames of reference or circumstances.) Objective and absolute are not the same thing.

What I'm saying is that is a nonsensical question. Describe to me an instance of rape that is independent of actors, circumstances, and reference.

The definition of rape is contingent on all of those things.
What you are asking is tantamount to this:
"is there such thing as a fart that is stinky as an absolute? I mean, I don't like the smell of farts, to me, they smell like shit. But that's not the same thing as saying their Ontologically Stinky"
That's right. And it lends nothing to the understanding of human experience any more than an intrinsically Wrong rape that exists apart from our reflection of it.

[Losty]

Hey Losty I think I'm confusing myself, I'm talking specifically about "homicide", which means "killing a human being" it its simplest form. There isn't a translated word for "murder" in Portuguese so basically "murder" for me means "homicide", sorry. Language barriers suck

Yup homicide is killing murder is unlawful killing. Had an Italian guy tell me yesterday "I do not pretend that you send me nude photos". I was like uhh... I'm glad...I guess lol.
I actually like language barriers. It gives people a fun opportunity to form friendships over trying to learn how to understand each other.
When I was learning Spanish, I made a really good friend. He learned English and I learned Spanish just through trying to understand each other when we happened ourselves into a situation that we had to spend a lot of time together. I haven't talked to him in years but he was a splash of sunshine in a time when my life was shit. Look at me go off on a tangent as always. Lol

[Dystopia]

I remember when I used the word "celebrate" in English with a completely different meaning. It was funny. I do my best to diminish my language barriers and I hope to possibly learn German + Russian someday, I enjoy different languages (Spanish and French are not of my interest). And this just got deraaaaaileeeeed....

[Mudhammam]

People who think moral truths require an absolute justification: No more is required, as far as I can tell, then the appeal Blaise Pascal invoked when---in all places, Section III of The Pensees otherwise known as "Of the Necessity of the Wager"---he said, "This carelessness in a matter which concerns themselves, their eternity, their all, moves me more to anger than pity; it astonishes and shocks me; it is to me monstrous. I do not say this out of pious zeal of a spiritual devotion. I expect, on the contrary, that we ought to have this feeling from principles of human interest and self-love; for this we need only see what the least enlightened persons see." Whereas Pascal means theology, which we know is a primitive attempt at philosophy and morality, the combination of which really leaves no room for theology if it is to succeed and be sound, I think it most naturally applies to moral philosophy. What better reason could one have for reason, or anything at all for that matter, if not out of "principles of human interest and self-love"? Any person capable of reasoning, regardless of whatever perverted behaviors stimulate pleasure for them, is able to judge rape to be morally wrong so far as it harms human interests, of much greater value to the individual and society than any single, momentarily pleasure. A person incapable of seeing the moral worth of reason, on the basis of the only reason that could possibly matter---our own interests---and in other words, can't understand that rape simply is morally unacceptable behavior because of its corrosive effects, I think that person is unreasonable, and unfeeling, for as Pascal also, I think, rightly says, "All reasoning reduces itself to yielding to feeling..." (before incorrectly adding, "Reason offers itself; but it is pliable in every sense; and thus there is no rule"; there is a rule, and it's called the actual brain states that we may possibly experience with greater or lesser probability, depending on the behaviors ourselves and our societies determine are more harmful than liberating, and hence, unacceptable). That person is a sociopath, and we must hope to develop other strategies to reach them if reasoning, with a sense of the future and a broadened perspective of their own interest, fails to influence their behavior more than the primal urges their body chemistry produces. I am for medicating such sociopaths.

[JuliaL]

Hey Losty I think I'm confusing myself, I'm talking specifically about "homicide", which means "killing a human being" it its simplest form. There isn't a translated word for "murder" in Portuguese so basically "murder" for me means "homicide", sorry. Language barriers suck

Don't worry about failed translation in threads, the problem is impossible to solve.
Not only do we in the US distinguish between murder and homicide, but there are distinctions based on the intentions of the perpetrator.
Homicide is just killing a human, not necessarily illegal.
Generally US murder is extra legal killing of a human by a human.
First degree murder- planned ahead of time with malace
Second degree- it wasn't planned
Third degree (voluntary manslaughter)- it was more of a spur of the moment thing, but still meant to do it
Involuntary manslaughter- more of an accident, but you were negligently responsible enough that society wants its pound of flesh.

Drat-it looks like if I had lived in Australia I would have had a defense denied me in the US...post-partum depression.

[Dystopia]

the conception of manslaughter (it's more or less equivalent to passionate murder) doesn't exist in my country - There's simple murder (killing someone illegally), premeditated murder (the most serious crime), passionate murder (on a moment of high emotions) and negligent murder (without intention) - There's also "child" murder when a mother kills a newborn due to post traumatic stress (this only carries a light sentence probably only 6 months if my memory is being accurate) after giving birth and obviously assisted suicide (unfortunately it is a crime). Thanks for the info JuliaL

[Losty]

Manslaughter and passionate murder are the same, I think.

[The Valkyrie]

Rape is always wrong no matter how you try to justify it or twist it.

Is that truly difficult for some people to understand?

[Dystopia]

Probably just different conceptions - You piss me off very badly and I shoot you - This is the description of a passionate murder... Or - I find my GF in bed with another guy and kill them both. That's another description. Premeditated murder in my country means that there's aggravating circumstances, such as, for example - Torturing the victim for fun before killing, raping the victim also for fun before killing, killing the victim to cover up a former crime, killing the victim for money, etc. (maximum penalty is 25 years for any crime)

---

Rape is always wrong no matter how you try to justify it or twist it.

Is that truly difficult for some people to understand?

Someone may bring a hypothetical magical scenario where rape is justified *sarcasm


[I'm having trouble quoting posts because when I quote someone it quotes the person directly above, is this a technical problem?]