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

[DeistPaladin]

You are very strongly asserting that one human raping another is always wrong under any circumstance. This would be the equivalent of a universal truth, because it is true regardless of time, location or public opinion. How does your view in any way differ with holding it as universally true that rape is wrong?
...
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.

As I make my way through this thread, I'm seeing that, in addition to conflating "subjective" with "relative", you are also conflating "objective" with "universal". I believe this to be an honest mistake as well as a common one. To help in our discussion, we need to agree on what terms mean so we can clearly communicate our ideas.

Objective: Not subject to anyone's opinions, beliefs, values or judgment.
Subjective: Subject to someone's opinions, beliefs, values or judgment.
Universal: Not subject to time, place or culture.
Relative: Subject to time, place or culture.

Can we agree on the above definitions?

If so, I would suggest that "higher moral code" has no bearing on whether or not morality is subjective. If God exists and dictates a code of morality, then morality is still subjective, by definition. Since God is a being, It would be a "someone" or qualify as an "anyone" in the above definition. God would be imparting moral values and exercising moral judgment based on Its beliefs.

Key words: "someone", "values", "judgment".

Ergo, morality is subjective.

Now, morality also deals with how we treat our fellow beings. You may have your culture but your freedom ends where it infringes on my life. This has to do with the concept of "sovereignty" of an individual as well as the "social contract".

Actions have consequences. Where the consequences impact others, they are not a matter of personal taste. I like strawberry ice cream. You might like chocolate ice cream. This is subjective and relative. However, you have no right to force feed me chocolate ice cream.

Ergo, morality is not relative but rather universal.

Hope this helps.

[wiploc]

In a society like Ancient Greece, where slavery is commonplace, a slave is property.
Like a car is property, or a table is property.... or a sex-toy is property.
As property, consent is not required, and resistance is not advisable, so it is to be expected that many slave owners had sex with their slaves. Is that rape?

Of course.

[Homeless Nutter]

I think the question was more intended to probe the question of how rape or anything immoral is wrong, rather than whether or not this specific act itself is.

Well, yes. And the OP chose this particular act precisely because its emotional impact would skew the conversation, and give him the pleasure of seeing atheists agree with the basic tenet of his theistic morality.

Precisely. It's not even a subtle manipulation, what with all the caps and inverted commas... The question posited in the OP is a philosophical equivalent of a flaming bag of shit, left on a doorstep.

All the more surprised I was seeing this thread being so "enthusiastically" revived...

[wiploc]

Hope this helps.

It confuses me.

You seem to have "subjective morality" confused with "relativistic morality".

...

"Moral Relativism" is the idea that not only is there no objective moral truths

I want to argue this. It seems to me that "objective" is the opposite of "subjective,' not of "relative." I don't see why you couldn't have objective moral rules that were relative, the same way as we have objective-but-relative rules about how fast an astronaut's watch is ticking.

But, I did a little Wikipedia research, and discovered that I know less about this than I thought. So, even though I'm uncomfortable with your claim, I'm in no position to contradict it.

(whatever that even is supposed to mean)

By the end of your post, you seem to be suggesting that objective things are those that can be measured.

but that there are no moral claims that can be made at all, that all ideas of right and wrong are just opinions. This philosophy only makes sense if you also subscribe to "solipsism", the idea that reality itself is up for grabs and that all knowledge is just opinion.

Okay, now I get to disagree with you. Lots of people believe the world really exists (not just inside your head) but that moral claims are not truth-apt.

Moral claims, while subjective in nature, can be supported by logical arguments, judged by internal consistency and validated by objective reality. What damage is done? What are the short term and long term consequences? Is there a victim? Would you want something done to you as it was done to the victim?

So why aren't you calling morality objective?

Morality can't be plugged into a spread sheet. We can't do the "number crunching" to determine what is right and wrong. There are no units of measure for morality as there are for temperature, distance, mass and velocity. Morality is not a substance. It can't be measured like matter or energy. Therefore morality is not objective.

First, I'm going to recommend The Moral Landscape, by Sam Harris. It got me past this notion that we can't measure the effects of moral rules. If you look at the moral landscape thru a wide-angle lens, it becomes obvious that some rules are better than others.

Which is pretty much what you conceded in your previous paragraph: Different moral systems have different effects, and sometimes its obvious which rules cause flourishing instead of suffering. We can tell this objectively.

There's no point in bemoaning the fact that you don't have a spreadsheet number out to six decimal points on the question of whether the Sabbath should start at sunset the day before, when we know for a fact that ripping out clitorises is painful and denies people sexual satisfaction.

Since we do have some objective moral facts, it isn't right to conclude that morality is subjective just because there are other questions that we don't have answers to.

We don't call meteorology subjective just because there are some things weathermen can't plug into their spreadsheets.

Morality involves evaluation. We use words like "moral judgment" which indicate that we understand it is subjective. Subjective, by definition, is not free from an individual's judgment, opinion or evaluation. It is the domain of philosophy, not science. Therefore, morality is subjective.

Eh. By that test, meteorology is subjective.

[DeistPaladin]

[moral relativism] ...only means that the morality of an action is dependent on who is doing the deed, and who is doing the judging. An example is killing: if the killer is not a person acting under a certain set of circumstances, the killing is regarded as immoral. If the killing is under the color of law, it is said to be "justifiable" (meaning morally justifiable). Example: compare a soldier to a serial-killer. They both kill multiple people; the serial killer is put to death, while the soldier is given some medals and a pension.
...
This is a non sequitur. It may well be that the differing moralities have areas of overlap, some large, some small, which permit those who hold different moral values to still discuss those morals, and differences, coherently.

And even if they couldn't have that discussion, it doesn't demonstrate that morality is absolute.

Fair points and I now believe I was careless with my discussion of "moral relativism" and exactly what that term means. If you'll allow me to start again...

First off, can we agree on my definition of "objective" and "subjective". I do believe that the OP has conflated these terms with "universal" and "relative".

If so, we might be able to agree that morality is, by definition, a subjective matter. We can't measure morals the same way we do mass, velocity, temperature or financial currency. Morality isn't an object or an energy that can be studied in a science lab. It's a conceptual evaluation of our actions and motives. It belongs in the realm of philosophy.

Furthermore, the existence of a god that weighs in on morality, prescribing a code of moral values and judging our actions would not make morality any less subjective. Ergo, theistic leading questions along the lines of "see, and where do these morals come from?" don't score any points for them in their efforts to prove even a god, never mind their favorite one.

If we can put that behind us, on to your points...

The question of universal vs. relative is an interesting one and your soldier/murderer example has given me pause.

I would first say that aggressive war is now recognized as a war crime. When W Bush and Cheney led our nation and others into a war with Iraq, they became personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. I would argue the moral culpability lies with political leaders who launch aggressive wars rather than on the soldiers carrying them out. Whereas the serial killer is acting on their own accord and for different motives.

Then there is "justifiable" (defensive) war, say when fighting against an aggressor that has invaded your country or coming to the aid of a country that has been invaded. In this case, the moral culpability still lies with the political leaders that launched the aggressive war.

Motivation is also important in our evaluations of moral behavior. "Good" or "evil" imply a choice that was made. In the movie, "Terminator 2", Dr. Myles Bennett Dyson is the inventor of an AI breakthrough that ultimately led to the nuclear holocaust that destroyed human civilization and ended 3 billion lives. However, his motive was to make a breakthrough that would help society. He did not intend the consequences and so, I would argue, is innocent at least morally.

Getting back to the soldier and serial killer example, the motives are also different. A soldier might kill to protect his country. This is a different motive than a serial killer who murders for pleasure.

Let me also clarify what I meant in that last paragraph you quoted. I was sloppy in my communication.

Instead of rape, let's use an example of a practice where different societies disagree on its morality: female genital mutilation (on my mind since I heard an interview recently in the news about the practice).

To some societies, female genital mutilation is necessary for "sexual purity" and will ensure her passage into Heaven. To sane societies, it's a horrid and barbaric practice, utterly immoral.

Now, since my understanding of "moral relativism" may be shaky, can you clarify for me how a moral relativist would evaluate our disagreement. Would a moral relativist argue, as I suspect, that our disagreement is just a matter of opinion, that my evaluation that a screaming six year old girl being held down by four adults while a fifth takes a knife and hacks away at her genitals is a horridly immoral practice, is just my culture?

This gets back to my point that "not all subjective opinions are equal". In making a case against female genital mutilation, I would argue:
1. The concept of "sexual purity" in this context is pure woo.
2. There is no evidence for any god who requires it.
3. There is no evidence that her passage into Heaven will result.
4. The practice destroys her ability to enjoy sex, thereby reducing the joy in the universe, all for no reason.
5. The practice violates her sovereignty as she neither gave consent nor could she at her young age.
6. The practice inflicts pain and suffering, possibly death, for no reason.

The counter arguments would likely involve nothing more than religious assertions with no evidence to back them up. Therefore, I would argue that my assessment of the morality of female genital mutilation is a much stronger case than one they could make.

---

We don't call meteorology subjective just because there are some things weathermen can't plug into their spreadsheets.
...
Eh. By that test, meteorology is subjective.

I'll have to respond later but I've given the thumbs up to both counter posts to my own because this is an interesting discussion and both of you have given me things to think about.

You might like my follow up post to the one you're responding to. I tried to be a little more clear in my definitions of terms.

Perhaps my love of spreadsheets has to do with my training in business school. Anyway, I'll respond later when I can.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Fair points and I now believe I was careless with my discussion of "moral relativism" and exactly what that term means. If you'll allow me to start again...

First off, can we agree on my definition of "objective" and "subjective". I do believe that the OP has conflated these terms with "universal" and "relative".

If so, we might be able to agree that morality is, by definition, a subjective matter. We can't measure morals the same way we do mass, velocity, temperature or financial currency. Morality isn't an object or an energy that can be studied in a science lab. It's a conceptual evaluation of our actions and motives. It belongs in the realm of philosophy.

Furthermore, the existence of a god that weighs in on morality, prescribing a code of moral values and judging our actions would not make morality any less subjective. Ergo, theistic leading questions along the lines of "see, and where do these morals come from?" don't score any points for them in their efforts to prove even a god, never mind their favorite one.

If we can put that behind us, on to your points...

Absolutely, we're in agreement on all those points.

The question of universal vs. relative is an interesting one and your soldier/murderer example has given me pause.

I would first say that aggressive war is now recognized as a war crime. When W Bush and Cheney led our nation and others into a war with Iraq, they became personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. I would argue the moral culpability lies with political leaders who launch aggressive wars rather than on the soldiers carrying them out. Whereas the serial killer is acting on their own accord and for different motives.

Agreed, to an extent. A soldier or other serviceman has a moral obligation to disobey an immoral order. This is not just me opining. This is the stated policy of the US Armed Forces, and it is important enough that at least when I was in boot camp we airmen were given one entire day of classroom study on the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. We were trained that we had a duty to not only disobey any order contrary to the GC or other obvious order to commit atrocity, but to report the officer issuing such orders. (I know I'm coming close to conflating morality and legality here, and I ask your forgiveness as I dance close to that edge).

Now, the common soldier doesn't have the legitimate authority to refuse an order to go to Iraq in order to wage war. However, he can with moral authority refuse such an order, suffer the legal consequences, and sleep comfortably at night.

Then there is "justifiable" (defensive) war, say when fighting against an aggressor that has invaded your country or coming to the aid of a country that has been invaded. In this case, the moral culpability still lies with the political leaders that launched the aggressive war.

Agreed, with the unwieldy caveat above applying.

Motivation is also important in our evaluations of moral behavior. "Good" or "evil" imply a choice that was made. In the movie, "Terminator 2", Dr. Myles Bennett Dyson is the inventor of an AI breakthrough that ultimately led to the nuclear holocaust that destroyed human civilization and ended 3 billion lives. However, his motive was to make a breakthrough that would help society. He did not intend the consequences and so, I would argue, is innocent at least morally.

And this is another good point. Intent does matter. But say, for instance, Einstein's letter to FDR about nuclear weaponry: does he not bear some burden for the Japanese deaths caused by the Bomb? He wrote that letter knowing full well that if he succeeded in his persuasion, people could die, and perhaps needlessly (though I don't hold that to be the case, others do)? And does he bear any responsibility for the innocents who died under that particular nuclear bombardment?

Getting back to the soldier and serial killer example, the motives are also different. A soldier might kill to protect his country. This is a different motive than a serial killer who murders for pleasure.

I get what your saying, and agree that intent factors into any moral judgement. The question then becomes at what point should the actor be expected to see how his action might be perverted? And does he have a responsibility to take that into account?

Let me also clarify what I meant in that last paragraph you quoted. I was sloppy in my communication.

Instead of rape, let's use an example of a practice where different societies disagree on its morality: female genital mutilation (on my mind since I heard an interview recently in the news about the practice).

To some societies, female genital mutilation is necessary for "sexual purity" and will ensure her passage into Heaven. To sane societies, it's a horrid and barbaric practice, utterly immoral.

Now, since my understanding of "moral relativism" may be shaky, can you clarify for me how a moral relativist would evaluate our disagreement. Would a moral relativist argue, as I suspect, that our disagreement is just a matter of opinion, that my evaluation that a screaming six year old girl being held down by four adults while a fifth takes a knife and hacks away at her genitals is a horridly immoral practice, is just my culture?

There are a few ways:

1) A descriptive MR would say that that is clear evidence for moral relativity, with assigning weight to one or the other moral standard.

2) A cultural MR would say that each standard is equally valid, and that we ought not impose our own judgements upon those societies practicing FGM.

3) An ethical non-realist would argue that morals have no objective existence in reality and would be skeptical of any ability to assign moral values.

In other words, some might argue that it's just a matter of opinion, while others might argue that differing moral values depend on the framework being imposed, and still others would say that one cannot say objectively that something is good or bad. There are other "flavors" to moral relativist, as well; this is by no means a complete list of them here.

This gets back to my point that "not all subjective opinions are equal". In making a case against female genital mutilation, I would argue:
1. The concept of "sexual purity" in this context is pure woo.
2. There is no evidence for any god who requires it.
3. There is no evidence that her passage into Heaven will result.
4. The practice destroys her ability to enjoy sex, thereby reducing the joy in the universe, all for no reason.
5. The practice violates her sovereignty as she neither gave consent nor could she at her young age.
6. The practice inflicts pain and suffering, possibly death, for no reason.

The counter arguments would likely involve nothing more than religious assertions with no evidence to back them up. Therefore, I would argue that my assessment of the morality of female genital mutilation is a much stronger case than one they could make.

And I would agree with you. But is that because those values have an objective existence, or because we both are products of a sociocultural millieu which espouses those values?

I'll have to respond later but I've given the thumbs up to both counter posts to my own because this is an interesting discussion and both of you have given me things to think about.

You might like my follow up post to the one you're responding to. I tried to be a little more clear in my definitions of terms.

Perhaps my love of spreadsheets has to do with my training in business school. Anyway, I'll respond later when I can.

Likewise, bud. I'm learning a lot from this conversation, and that's always a good thing. Thanks.

[emilynghiem]

How about this scenario? Where I still argue the rape is rape and wrong, even if the person forgives it and decides the outcome outweighs that wrong:

What if a man, say a soldier is going off to serve the next day, and that night he has an absolute conviction
he is going to die, and he knows his wife wanted to have a baby with him even if and especially if he was going to die.

So he wakes her up and explains he is sure he will die and wants to go ahead and have sex and get pregnant.
but she doesn't want to have sex and thinks he will come back later and they can do this.
right now she is finishing up school and wants to wait to get pregnant.

He insists he knows this is their only chance now or never.
no time to go freeze sperm and wait. and he is ready now and doesnt think to just inseminate her
without the sex (or which she refuses also, insisting they will have a better opportunity later not now)
but goes ahead and penetrates her though she tells him to stop

so he does commit marital rape, when he could have just inseminated her without the sex
to get her pregnant but was panicked didn't think and just did it

so technically it is rape

but it turns out, he does die overseas, and was right that was their only chance

she gets pregnant and has the baby and is happy and knows she loves the baby and is glad for that

but the act of sex was still rape and was still wrong,
and could have been done by insemination but the wife refused
and the husband insisted and did what he felt was the lesser compromise

I'd say that the act of rape is still wrong
but it turns out the wife forgives it because the outcome made up for it afterwards

it is still rape and still wrong because not both partners consented

[Losty]

It's still rape, it's still horrible, there's absolutely nothing in the story that makes it less awful.
Also, had he inseminated her without her consent that'd still be pretty fucked up even without the rape.

[wiploc]

Objective: Not subject to anyone's opinions, beliefs, values or judgment.
Subjective: Subject to someone's opinions, beliefs, values or judgment.
Universal: Not subject to time, place or culture.
Relative: Subject to time, place or culture.

Can we agree on the above definitions?

I don't see the point of those definitions. How are they useful or helpful? You've managed to make meteorology, and even mathematics, subjective. But you only did it by making "subjective" cover everything. What's the point of that?

Would you define "big" and "little" by saying that anything larger than a Planck length is big?

If so, I would suggest that "higher moral code" has no bearing on whether or not morality is subjective. If God exists and dictates a code of morality, then morality is still subjective, by definition.

Agreed. That is, if we're assuming that the god is dictating rules based on his whims. If he's dictating rules based on his observations of reality, then his moral rules may be objective (for some value of "objective") but they would still exist (and still be objective) even if the god did not exist.

...
Key words: "someone", "values", "judgment".

Ergo, morality is subjective.

Now, morality also deals with how we treat our fellow beings. You may have your culture but your freedom ends where it infringes on my life. This has to do with the concept of "sovereignty" of an individual as well as the "social contract".

Now you're suddenly talking as if you are in possession of cold hard facts. Objective facts. Why did you bother to define everything as subjective if you still need us to pay attention as if morality wasn't your personal whim?

Actions have consequences. Where the consequences impact others, they are not a matter of personal taste. I like strawberry ice cream. You might like chocolate ice cream. This is subjective and relative. However, you have no right to force feed me chocolate ice cream.

Why not, if this is all subjective?

Ergo, morality is not relative but rather universal.

Wow, that came out of the blue. Your definition of "universal" made everything, or almost everything, relative, didn't it?

Let's, just for illustration, push everything to the other end. Instead of defining universal as things that are in no degree subject to time, place, or culture, let's define things as universal if they are to any degree independent of time, place, or culture. That's just as skewed, but it's skewed in the other direction. Now you can say morality is universal.

Hope this helps.

I'm still confused, but thanks for trying.

[LastPoet]

Why do I feel this guy is gunning for you DP?