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

[Sterben]

I slightly agree with you losty, I'm just trying to make a point of the interactions we have with one a other and signals that are given off. Take the classic of a guy and girl are making out and the guy try's to caress the breast. She pushes his hand away and keeps kissing him, this happened to me once and I took it as gesture of I don't want to from her and left her room. I tried to call her a couple days later to see if she wanted to go out, she did not want to I asked her why she said "I like a more forceful man". So, was she hinting to me she wanted me force myself upon her like a rapist would? Or is this just a case of me having less understanding on the interactions between a man and woman?

---

Thank you for the insight guys, understand this gray zone is very difficult for me. Since I have little experience directly with the matter.

[Norman Humann]

@Sterben

I still don't think you see the difference between rough consensual sex and rape. Rape is when a sexual act is commited without consent. Rough sex is consensual. That girl did definitely not want you to rape her, because, as I said, rape is when a person doesn't want to have sex and is being forced to. Maybe she was just into some more kinky stuff.

[GrandizerII]

I slightly agree with you losty, I'm just trying to make a point of the interactions we have with one a other and signals that are given off. Take the classic of a guy and girl are making out and the guy try's to caress the breast. She pushes his hand away and keeps kissing him, this happened to me once and I took it as gesture of I don't want to from her and left her room. I tried to call her a couple days later to see if she wanted to go out, she did not want to I asked her why she said "I like a more forceful man". So, was she hinting to me she wanted me force myself upon her like a rapist would? Or is this just a case of me having less understanding on the interactions between a man and woman?

---

Thank you for the insight guys, understand this gray zone is very difficult for me. Since I have little experience directly with the matter.

If reading body language properly is difficult for you, you could always ask permission from the girl you're making out with. If she doesn't like you asking her for permission, then better just end the make out session. You did well by not going further with this.

[Sterben]

I guess I don't, but I needed to know if my point of view held any ground to see if my views held any errors. It turns it does and what I learned is I have a very limited scope on the matter. Thank you you helping me understand a bit more on the subject.

---

I slightly agree with you losty, I'm just trying to make a point of the interactions we have with one a other and signals that are given off. Take the classic of a guy and girl are making out and the guy try's to caress the breast. She pushes his hand away and keeps kissing him, this happened to me once and I took it as gesture of I don't want to from her and left her room. I tried to call her a couple days later to see if she wanted to go out, she did not want to I asked her why she said "I like a more forceful man". So, was she hinting to me she wanted me force myself upon her like a rapist would? Or is this just a case of me having less understanding on the interactions between a man and woman?

---

Thank you for the insight guys, understand this gray zone is very difficult for me. Since I have little experience directly with the matter.

If reading body language properly is difficult for you, you could always ask permission from the girl you're making out with. If she doesn't like you asking her for permission, then better just end the make out session. You did well by not going further with this.

Thank you, ever since I was a teen I had fear of being accused of rape. It's a very scary concept that all she as to do cry rape even when there was no rape committed. I have no respect for real rapists and the activity is wrong. I'm so scared of the being accused I will never date again. Maybe I'm just being parodied, but from what I read online a lot of people feel this way about it and would rather stay alone then stand trial for something the person did not do.

[DeistPaladin]

It confuses me.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

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.

I probably did confuse you because I don't disagree, as you seem to think I do. In fact, I was arguing for subjective-and-universal rules for morality. The OP, like most theists using the moral argument, tends to conflate "objective" with "universal" or "absolute". Like most theist apologetic arguments, it relies heavily on a false dilemma between "either our god determines what is moral or anything goes and who can say really what is right or wrong."

Getting back to why I consider morality "subjective", consider that in our discussions of morality, there are some implicit assumptions that can't be objectively proven:

• Life is preferable to death
  
• Pleasure is preferable to pain
  
• Health is preferable to disease
  
• Wealth is preferable to poverty
  
• Justice is preferable to injustice
  

etc.

It's kind of like that survey I once saw for consumer behavior in one marketing-strategy class I took back in business school. Consumers were asked why they pick a certain product. Then they were asked a follow up question "and why is that important to you?" and then another follow to that answer "and why is that important to you?" and so on until finally the consumer just answered "it just is", at which point we know the consumer's ultimate objective.

Why do we prefer life over death or pleasure over pain? We just do. It's in our nature. Where our actions impact the life, well-being, happiness, etc. of others, questions of morality apply.

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

...assuming we have enough knowledge and accurate measuring devices, yes. By definition, at least as I understand it, is objective means "not subject to opinions, values or judgment". So, it's measurable then?

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.

OK, how about relativism to me only makes sense if you also waste time wondering if the outside world is real. I say this because actions have consequences in the real world. It genuinely confounds me that someone can seriously observe barbaric religious practices that clearly result in increased misery and decreased joy in life and decide it's not less moral but just a matter of culture.

So why aren't you calling morality objective?

Objective data used to support a subjective evaluation doesn't make the subjective matter objective.

Example:
Two politicians in a hypothetical country are debating one another, one is the incumbent and the other a challenger. One says the economy is great the other says the economy is in terrible shape. The incumbent uses the lower unemployment rate to back his assertion that the economy under his administration is in great shape. The challenger points out that the inflation rate is higher than when the incumbent came into office. Both are using objective data to support their subjective evaluations.

When we say things are "good" or "bad", we are using our judgment and comparing it to our values (subjective). When we measure things using units of measure, that is 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.

I'm fond of Sam Harris' work. I have not read the book you mention but he did write on the subject of morality in "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation". I think we may be tripping up over semantics more than anything else.

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.

But why is flourishing preferable over suffering? This is a value. The objective data shows us the most effective path to reach our value but that doesn't make our values objective.

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.

...and this too is about values. We value life. We value liberty. We value the pursuit of happiness. We see suffering and our sense of empathy compels us to relieve it. Our sense of the social contract (as we are evolved as community animals that depend on one another for survival) tells us that this is wrong because we wouldn't want it to be done to us. Our sense of justice tells us that it is wrong to do unto others as we wouldn't want done unto us.

These are all emotional values. There's nothing wrong with that. Just because something is "subjective" doesn't mean that all opinions are equal in merit or that one society that promotes suffering with its culture has an equally valid moral code to one that promotes happiness.

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.

That's not what I've said. It's not the lack of knowledge that makes something subjective. It's the fact that it grows out of values rather than numbers. Morality is the domain of philosophy, not science.

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

But meteorology does involve data and forecasting based upon it. Temperature, barometric pressure and precipitation are all measurable in numbers. Forecasting, while not always precise, involves looking at trends in the objective data. Like it or not, whether you think it "good" or "bad", it's raining outside. The rain is an objective reality.

[The Reality Salesman01]

^ perfect.

[Mudhammam]

I agree with everything you said DeistP, except that you seem to be granting that a person can reject such "categorical imperatives" as "Life is preferable to death," "Pleasure is preferable to pain," "Health is preferable to disease," and still be engaged in rational inquiry, rational first and foremost insofar as our aim is to satisfy our personal interests, or what some might call our ontological needs.

[wiploc]

... I was arguing for subjective-and-universal rules for morality.

Thanks, that helps.

...
Getting back to why I consider morality "subjective", consider that in our discussions of morality, there are some implicit assumptions that can't be objectively proven:

• Life is preferable to death
  
• Pleasure is preferable to pain
  
• Health is preferable to disease
  
• Wealth is preferable to poverty
  
• Justice is preferable to injustice
  

etc.
...
Why do we prefer life over death or pleasure over pain? We just do. It's in our nature. Where our actions impact the life, well-being, happiness, etc. of others, questions of morality apply.

I might argue that those don't yet have to do with morality:

Suppose you wanted to get to the magnetic north pole. Your compass would take you right to the place. The desire to go there is subjective, but the means is objective.

Preferring happiness to unhappiness is (arguably) subjective, but the means of achieving happiness is more and more part of the realm of objective knowledge.

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

...assuming we have enough knowledge and accurate measuring devices, yes. By definition, at least as I understand it, is objective means "not subject to opinions, values or judgment". So, it's measurable then?

Let's say you live in a pre-tech village on the edge of an ocean bay. People debate how deep the bay is. At first, you can only be sure of the depth as far out as people can wade. But, later, a guy floats around on a log, sounding with a pole. You know more about the depths. Later, the canoe is invented, and the lead line; you know even more. And now, your next door neighbor, Joe, says he's working on something he calls "downward looking sonar."

Is the depth of the bay subjective? Just because you can't measure all of it yet, so sometimes you guess and argue, does that make it subjective?

I incline, at least in this conversational context (notice me hedging here) to say that the dept of the bay is an objective thing, no matter how little we know about it. Likewise morality.

And now let me backpedal: My real position is that atheist morality is exactly as objective as theist morality. I don't care what definition of "objective" they use. Let them offer any one definition, and I'll hold them to that definition, and my morality will turn out to be exactly as objective as theirs.

The essence of the moral argument is equivocating on the word "objective." So it's not my job to bring a definition to the table. My job is to identify their definition, and prove that the argument fails when we use that definition.

So I don't care what it means. I'll go with any definition they field.

Which means I'm a little embarrassed to be talking as if I know the one true definition. But what I never want to do is to call atheist morality "subjective" if I don't call theist morality "subjective" in the same sentence.

That said, once we decide what our goals are (which process I don't generally regard as moral), the system of reaching those goals (which I'm happy to call "morality") seems as likely to be objective (for any value of "objective" that would make god-based morality objective).

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.

OK, how about relativism to me only makes sense if you also waste time wondering if the outside world is real. I say this because actions have consequences in the real world. It genuinely confounds me that someone can seriously observe barbaric religious practices that clearly result in increased misery and decreased joy in life and decide it's not less moral but just a matter of culture.

Okay. As long as you're saying that---in your opinion---relativism entails solipsism, you're good. I'm may think you're affirming the consequent, but that's beside the point.

So why aren't you calling morality objective?

Objective data used to support a subjective evaluation doesn't make the subjective matter objective.

And conversely ...

I think we may be tripping up over semantics more than anything else.

Yes, I think that's what we're discussing.

But why is flourishing preferable over suffering? This is a value. The objective data shows us the most effective path to reach our value but that doesn't make our values objective.

That "most effective path" stuff is the stuff of morality, don't you think?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Your last sentence and the previous one explain [edit: ...the continued confusion]. There's a reluctance to call a spade a spade in these discussions...

[GrandizerII]

I guess I don't, but I needed to know if my point of view held any ground to see if my views held any errors. It turns it does and what I learned is I have a very limited scope on the matter. Thank you you helping me understand a bit more on the subject.

---

If reading body language properly is difficult for you, you could always ask permission from the girl you're making out with. If she doesn't like you asking her for permission, then better just end the make out session. You did well by not going further with this.

Thank you, ever since I was a teen I had fear of being accused of rape. It's a very scary concept that all she as to do cry rape even when there was no rape committed. I have no respect for real rapists and the activity is wrong. I'm so scared of the being accused I will never date again. Maybe I'm just being parodied, but from what I read online a lot of people feel this way about it and would rather stay alone then stand trial for something the person did not do.

This sounds like a scary experience to have. Maybe some form of cognitive therapy could help in this case (if you can afford it). I don't think I can give you any better advice.