Morality without God

[arewethereyet]

And, I'd like to add that I get a little twitchy when someone starts easing in on what may turn into rape apologetics.
Let's not go there.  Okay?

Are you then withdrawing your prior statement and abandoning the discussion?

No

[The Grand Nudger]

Something about me is why rape is wrong.
Something about society is why rape is wrong.
Something about rape is why rape is wrong.

Which of these three (if any) best describes your position on the matter of why rape is wrong?

Something about rape is why rape is wrong?

That's moral realism.  Objective morality.  If someone asks you how you justify a moral declaration, you refer to facts of the matter.

[Angrboda]

Are you then withdrawing your prior statement and abandoning the discussion?

No

I had nine of my ten fingers amputated. By any measure that is a violent act, so it seems that being a violent act alone isn't enough to make rape wrong. Seeing as you followed it with, "therefore," it seems that was your implication.

By analogy, capital punishment is a violent act against a person, therefore it is fundamentally wrong. Now there may be objections to capital punishment, but I don't think it being a violent act would be what makes it wrong.

ps. If you find yourself unable to behave respectfully in any discussion, perhaps the best thing for you to do is withdraw. Issuing veiled threats is not arguing in good faith.

[The Grand Nudger]

Aren't we going off the rails with that one? It seems like we can separate medical intervention from violent action. The difference between a doctor saving your life and some nut chopping a person up. There may be issues with considering a violent act against another person wrong, but, if so, that's probably not one of them.

[Angrboda]

Aren't we going off the rails with that one?  It seems like we can separate medical intervention from violent action.  The difference between a doctor saving your life and some nut chopping a person up.  There may be issues with considering a violent act against another person wrong, but, if so, that's probably not one of them.

I'm working with what was given. She didn't leave herself room for differences. I'm saying her formulation was inadequate. You're pointing out the same thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that if you consider it more carefully, you'll find that it was you who attempted to prevent any room for difference. If a person thinks that violent acts against another person are fundamentally wrong, that doesn't necessitate that they view medical intervention as fundamentally wrong - as a violent act against another person. Just as before, where, if a person -did- see capital punishment as a violent act against another person, they probably would feel that capital punishment was wrong.

[arewethereyet]

What is a rape victim guilty of?

In a capital murder conviction a person has been found guilty of a murder by a jury and has been sentenced to death for their actions. My stance on the death penalty has been changing over the last few years due to the advancements in science in general and forensics specifically. Too many people have been exonerated who would have died had these changes in knowledge not come to light.

Again, I ask, what is a rape victim guilty of?

As for me issuing a threat...no, I just let it be known that this discussion turned to rape and it's being watched.

When you tell me that I shouldn't participate in a thread because you don't like what I said or how I said it, you are close to breaking the rule regarding attempting to limit participation.

So, take a breath and calm down a little.

And I am confused that you see what was done to you in a medical situation as a violent act. I had both breasts removed to stop the spread and potentially the recurrence of breast cancer. Both are situations involve mutilation but not in a criminally violent manner.

[The Grand Nudger]

In a capital murder conviction a person has been found guilty of a murder by a jury and has been sentenced to death for their actions.  My stance on the death penalty has been changing over the last few years due to the advancements in science in general and forensics specifically.  Too many people have been exonerated who would have died had these changes in knowledge not come to light.

I think this is an example of something that would have to be the case for any moral statement to be called objective - that a declaration rests on facts of that matter and is only as good as those facts.  

Does being convicted of a murder by a jury and sentenced to death change something about whether or not capital punishment is a violent act against another person, though?

[arewethereyet]

In a capital murder conviction a person has been found guilty of a murder by a jury and has been sentenced to death for their actions.  My stance on the death penalty has been changing over the last few years due to the advancements in science in general and forensics specifically.  Too many people have been exonerated who would have died had these changes in knowledge not come to light.

I think this is an example of something that would have to be the case for any moral statement to be called objective - that a declaration rests on facts of that matter and is only as good as those facts.  

Does being convicted of a murder by a jury and sentenced to death change something about whether or not capital punishment is a violent act against another person, though?

Of course not.  It is a violent act.  

But I am not the one who compared someone convicted of a capital crime to a rape victim.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Rape is a violent act against another person.  Therefore, at it's most fundamental, it's wrong.

So is capital punishment.  That doesn't make it wrong.

Yes it does.

Boru