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

[Whateverist]

Fuck it. I'm not going to quit posting here just because I got upset.

Anyhow, I apologize for harming all members who got triggered by my posts. I want to make it very clear that was not my intention and that I was just trying to answer it from a purely logical perspective (in my view at least). With my answers, I failed to empathize with those who been through bad experiences in life related to this matter, and I apologize as well to Rebecca for the misattribution regarding lack of objectivity.

Good on you. I took what you said in the way you meant but obviously not everyone did. Language is a bitch and its hard to make it convey what you want it to.

[JuliaL]

---

Fuck it. I'm not going to quit posting here just because I got upset.

Had the question been "Should rape be made legal?", then I don't think anyone here would've answered "yes". And in fact, I haven't seen one post here trying to justify rape. What I was saying is that whatever criteria you put to determine whether something is morally right or wrong, the rapist is still going to disagree. It does not mean I think he is justified in that. I still, for all practical purposes, see rape as always wrong (like I said in my first response).

---

The question posed in the OP was a philosophical question. So I answered in that sort of framework.

---

Anyhow, I apologize for harming all members who got triggered by my posts. I want to make it very clear that was not my intention and that I was just trying to answer it from a purely logical perspective (in my view at least). With my answers, I failed to empathize with those who been through bad experiences in life related to this matter, and I apologize as well to Rebecca for the misattribution regarding lack of objectivity.

---

It's too bad so simple and dry a question got people so het-up and feisty.
It'd be nice if we could all settle down, but I doubt that is likely so I'm just gonna split.

Ta.

[GrandizerII]

---

Fuck it. I'm not going to quit posting here just because I got upset.

Had the question been "Should rape be made legal?", then I don't think anyone here would've answered "yes". And in fact, I haven't seen one post here trying to justify rape. What I was saying is that whatever criteria you put to determine whether something is morally right or wrong, the rapist is still going to disagree. It does not mean I think he is justified in that. I still, for all practical purposes, see rape as always wrong (like I said in my first response).

---

The question posed in the OP was a philosophical question. So I answered in that sort of framework.

---

Anyhow, I apologize for harming all members who got triggered by my posts. I want to make it very clear that was not my intention and that I was just trying to answer it from a purely logical perspective (in my view at least). With my answers, I failed to empathize with those who been through bad experiences in life related to this matter, and I apologize as well to Rebecca for the misattribution regarding lack of objectivity.

---

It's too bad so simple and dry a question got people so het-up and feisty.
It'd be nice if we could all settle down, but I doubt that is likely so I'm just gonna split.

Ta.

FWIW, I agree with you (at least on some of the points) regarding animal discussion.

My advice is to just take a few hours break from the forum and then just come back and see if you feel any better.

[Pyrrho]

...
Rape can't be wrong for all critters. For some that may be the only way of reproduction.

Can't?

You seem to suppose that the survival of a species is of sufficient importance that its continuance would justify rape. Is that what you mean?

Why can't it be that if a species cannot survive without rape, then it ought not survive?

[Losty]

With rights come responsibilities.

Why?

That is my entire point. It is not the right of an animal to not be harmed, but rather the responsibility of a human being to not harm animals.

Considering your right/responsibility relationship as a unit then can you be restated without alteration of meaning to say that, "the animal has a right not to be harmed by a human?" .

You can say it however you like. I wasn't trying to derail the thread. I was saying the concept of animals having rights makes no sense to me.

However you want to word it, we agree on what is important. It is not okay for people to harm animals. I probably feel less strongly about it than you do. I'm not a vegetarian and I will certainly drown a spider in Lysol without an ounce of guilt.

---

...
Rape can't be wrong for all critters. For some that may be the only way of reproduction.

Can't?

You seem to suppose that the survival of a species is of sufficient importance that its continuance would justify rape. Is that what you mean?

Why can't it be that if a species cannot survive without rape, then it ought not survive?

Animals are not the same as humans.... They rape each other...they don't seem to care much. Maybe it's not their favorite but I don't think they suffer any emotional trauma.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

I would dismiss the rapist's feelings out of hand because he violated one of the victim's most basic rights, the right to be left alone. Society has a clear interest in furthering the social contract and ensuring its observance wherever possible.

Of course, this is an appeal to legalism, but quite frankly, I don't think it's necessary to appeal to morality to disregard the rapist's feelings. Violating the social contract often results in the loss of rights or privileges.

[rexbeccarox]

---

Fuck it. I'm not going to quit posting here just because I got upset.

Had the question been "Should rape be made legal?", then I don't think anyone here would've answered "yes". And in fact, I haven't seen one post here trying to justify rape. What I was saying is that whatever criteria you put to determine whether something is morally right or wrong, the rapist is still going to disagree. It does not mean I think he is justified in that. I still, for all practical purposes, see rape as always wrong (like I said in my first response).

The question posed in the OP was a philosophical question. So I answered in that sort of framework.

---

Anyhow, I apologize for harming all members who got triggered by my posts. I want to make it very clear that was not my intention and that I was just trying to answer it from a purely logical perspective (in my view at least). With my answers, I failed to empathize with those who been through bad experiences in life related to this matter, and I apologize as well to Rebecca for the misattribution regarding lack of objectivity.

Thank you.

[Rev. Rye]

The whole idea of moral relativism is that there are times where certain things usually considered wrong can be justified.

Can anyone explain just what kind of circumstance could make rape justifiable?

[Dystopia]

Moral relativism doesn't mean all moral opinions are equal

[Mudhammam]

The whole idea of moral relativism is that there are times where certain things usually considered wrong can be justified.

Can anyone explain just what kind of circumstance could make rape justifiable?

You find yourself in a garden with the only other woman on the planet, and you witnessed her form out of your rib?