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

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm very sorry. In the last post I seem to have not made myself clear. I apologize for this. The information I am compiling is a comparative study on Theistic and Atheistic values and convictions, and their impact on society.

Also since it seems someone took me wrong when I said I wouldn't challenge the belief stated, I guess we can do that in this thread too if you like.

So the question... Does absolute universal moral truth exist? Is there ANYTHING where it can be said that it is morally true universally?

For instance: "Rape is ALWAYS wrong" <<<This would be considered a moral truth. Is it universally true? Is it true even if society deemed that rape was perfectly acceptable?

A "comparative study", eh? That sounds pretty sciency. Do you have a control group? Have you factored in the many statistical anomalies that will be introduced by asking that question on an atheist Internet forum? Who will be reviewing your conclusions?

I'm not sure whether absolute moral truths exist. I'm certainly inclined to disbelieve in them. Your specific example, rape, seems less that ideal in that it is clearly an attempt to invoke emotion. I can't see anything good about rape ... unless it was Adolf Hitler being gangbanged by the 89 LA Lakers. That would be good.

[JuliaL]

I vote no twice.

There are definitions of rape in which rape occurs if the subject being coerced into sex does not or cannot give informed consent to a sex act.
Hence, in the case of person engaging in sex with a rock or other inanimate object, the definition holds that this is rape. I'd be hard pressed to view this as wrong.

In my view, morality is an emergent pattern in which some actions are seen as preferable from the perspective of an agent if they enhance the probability that the agent will persist and reproduce. A consistency in this pattern is that the perspective of the agent varies depending on contributing parameters. For instance, it would be a positive moral action for a religion to proselytize and coerce converts, from the perspective of the religion. From the perspective of the converts, the heathens in the village next door being forcibly engulfed, such coercion by the religion could be viewed as a negative moral action. I see morality occurring on many levels of system complexity and often a single action will be seen as correct or incorrect depending on the perspective of whose ox is being gored. Outside of actions taken within these replicating systems, I do not see morality existing at all, much less absolutely. Where is the flame when the candle is not lit?

Bacon: good for breakfast, bad for the pig.

[Jackalope]

Define the scope of "universally true". To humanity? To all known species? To all moral agents, known and unknown? Something else?

By universally true, I mean it is true regardless of time or location or prevailing opinion. Does the truth that rape is wrong supersede human social acceptance? If so, then the Atheist has to deal with a higher moral code.

So, to humans then? You didn't exactly answer my question.

[KUSA]

9 out of 10 people think gang rape is moral.

[Tsun Tsu]

I'm very sorry. In the last post I seem to have not made myself clear. I apologize for this. The information I am compiling is a comparative study on Theistic and Atheistic values and convictions, and their impact on society.

Also since it seems someone took me wrong when I said I wouldn't challenge the belief stated, I guess we can do that in this thread too if you like.

So the question... Does absolute universal moral truth exist? Is there ANYTHING where it can be said that it is morally true universally?

For instance: "Rape is ALWAYS wrong" <<<This would be considered a moral truth. Is it universally true? Is it true even if society deemed that rape was perfectly acceptable?

A "comparative study", eh? That sounds pretty sciency. Do you have a control group? Have you factored in the many statistical anomalies that will be introduced by asking that question on an atheist Internet forum? Who will be reviewing your conclusions?

I'm not sure whether absolute moral truths exist. I'm certainly inclined to disbelieve in them. Your specific example, rape, seems less that ideal in that it is clearly an attempt to invoke emotion. I can't see anything good about rape ... unless it was Adolf Hitler being gangbanged by the 89 LA Lakers. That would be good.

You'd be surprised how "sciency" I can get I'm sure

As far as "evoking emotion" I would counter with why that should intimidate? Rape is a reality. And this is to discuss the effects and ramifications of our belief system on society, how it effects our teaching, and how and what is reinforced and emphasized. Summarily it is an examination as to which train of thought is ultimately more beneficial to society.

Also it is intended to help point out inconsistencies, and possibly even the more controversial end results of our belief systems.

So... it seems to me that the Atheist may have to resolve what brings about a higher moral code if universal truth actually exists... If it is ALWAYS wrong to rape, then this truth is larger than the world... not made of matter... rape is not a chemical reaction. On the other hand, if one holds that rape is not always bad, then the Atheist is faced with the dilemma of providing an instance where it is "good".

And how about child abuse?

Is it universally true that child abuse is wrong? Or are there instances where it is "good"?

---

By universally true, I mean it is true regardless of time or location or prevailing opinion. Does the truth that rape is wrong supersede human social acceptance? If so, then the Atheist has to deal with a higher moral code.

So, to humans then? You didn't exactly answer my question.

I don't see how that wasn't answered... It is either universally true regardless of any outside force or inside force, regardless or dissenting opinion, or then rape is sometimes good

How vote you?

[Tartarus Sauce]

I deem it always wrong, but that is a concept bound to humans and our interpretation of the world, not a fundamental principle of the universe.

Would this extend to being wrong for any advanced race anywhere in time or space?

So long as the concept of consent exists, yes.

But as was previously stated, it's not an objective natural law, it's entirely encompassed within the interactions of sentient beings.

[Tsun Tsu]

I vote no twice.

There are definitions of rape in which rape occurs if the subject being coerced into sex does not or cannot give informed consent to a sex act.
Hence, in the case of person engaging in sex with a rock or other inanimate object, the definition holds that this is rape. I'd be hard pressed to view this as wrong.

In my view, morality is an emergent pattern in which some actions are seen as preferable from the perspective of an agent if they enhance the probability that the agent will persist and reproduce. A consistency in this pattern is that the perspective of the agent varies depending on contributing parameters. For instance, it would be a positive moral action for a religion to proselytize and coerce converts, from the perspective of the religion. From the perspective of the converts, the heathens in the village next door being forcibly engulfed, such coercion by the religion could be viewed as a negative moral action. I see morality occurring on many levels of system complexity and often a single action will be seen as correct or incorrect depending on the perspective of whose ox is being gored. Outside of actions taken within these replicating systems, I do not see morality existing at all, much less absolutely. Where is the flame when the candle is not lit?

Bacon: good for breakfast, bad for the pig.

So then... since you don't seem to want to take this seriously, lets narrow the field... Do you agree with me that it is NEVER good to rape a child, or do you hold it is SOMETIMES good?

[Chas]

I vote no twice.

There are definitions of rape in which rape occurs if the subject being coerced into sex does not or cannot give informed consent to a sex act.
Hence, in the case of person engaging in sex with a rock or other inanimate object, the definition holds that this is rape. I'd be hard pressed to view this as wrong.

In my view, morality is an emergent pattern in which some actions are seen as preferable from the perspective of an agent if they enhance the probability that the agent will persist and reproduce. A consistency in this pattern is that the perspective of the agent varies depending on contributing parameters. For instance, it would be a positive moral action for a religion to proselytize and coerce converts, from the perspective of the religion. From the perspective of the converts, the heathens in the village next door being forcibly engulfed, such coercion by the religion could be viewed as a negative moral action. I see morality occurring on many levels of system complexity and often a single action will be seen as correct or incorrect depending on the perspective of whose ox is being gored. Outside of actions taken within these replicating systems, I do not see morality existing at all, much less absolutely. Where is the flame when the candle is not lit?

Bacon: good for breakfast, bad for the pig.

So then... since you don't seem to want to take this seriously, lets narrow the field... Do you agree with me that it is NEVER good to rape a child, or do you hold it is SOMETIMES good?

Not serious? Did you actually read his answer?

[Tsun Tsu]

Would this extend to being wrong for any advanced race anywhere in time or space?

So long as the concept of consent exists, yes.

But as was previously stated, it's not an objective natural law, it's entirely encompassed within the interactions of sentient beings.

And if the concept of consent does not exist? Is rape still wrong? If all of society accepted that it was good to rape children under 6... is it then in reality a "good" thing or is it "wrong" despite opinion? ...is it universally true that the rape of a child is wrong?

[Tartarus Sauce]

So long as the concept of consent exists, yes.

But as was previously stated, it's not an objective natural law, it's entirely encompassed within the interactions of sentient beings.

And if the concept of consent does not exist? Is rape still wrong? If all of society accepted that it was good to rape children under 6... is it then in reality a "good" thing or is it "wrong" despite opinion? ...is it universally true that the rape of a child is wrong?

If the concept of consent does not exist than neither does the existence of rape as an action.

It's ALWAYS wrong from my perspective. As to whether that makes it universally true is a different matter entirely.