Morality without Absolute Morality

[NxNW]

Why don't you begin by telling us what you mean when you use the term "absolute morality."

Revealed by a deity.

 

[zippy2006]

Because rape is defined by the context.

Here's a lil quiz question for you Bradskii:

Based on the definition you have accepted, is someone who thinks rape is always intrinsically wrong a moral absolutist? Yes or no?

 

[Bradskii]

Here's a lil quiz question for you Bradskii:

Based on the definition you have accepted, is someone who thinks rape is always intrinsically wrong a moral absolutist? Yes or no?

I don't think you are grasping the argument. You are asking if something which by definition is wrong...is wrong. It's a tautology. The term you are using is already defined by the context. I'll expand it to illustrate it for you. Hopefully you'll understand:

Is having sex with someone without their consent wrong?

You'll note the context in italics. The act is wrong determined by that context. It is wrong relative to the conditions. We can't say it's rape until those conditions are met.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Indeed. But surely you can think of a reason to not steal, for example:

Do you want your goods to be stolen? Obviously not.
If you steal someone else's goods then others might well reciprocate.
So...OK. Let's agree that if I don't steal yours then you won't steal mine. Agreed?

That's being entirely legalistic about it. But it can happen in this way as well:

I worked hard for what I've got. If someone stole it I'd be unhappy.
If someone else had their goods stolen, they'd be unhappy. I know what that feels like.
I don't want them feeling unhappy so I won't steal their goods.

That's an instinctive response (you can call it God given if you like). Some people are like that, some are not. But those who are like that form a more stable society. Those who are not are shunned, expelled, locked up...taken out of the group.

Respectfully, stealing is a poor example because the Bible actually shows a level of grace under specific circumstances.

" A hungry man might steal to fill his stomach. If he is caught, he must pay seven times more than he stole. It might cost him everything he owns, but other people understand. They don’t lose all their respect for him. " Proverbs 6:31-32 ERV

So in this case, stealing would be morally wrong and are deserving of consequences. However, stealing food to avoid starvation is understandable and is given some level of grace. I believe that other sins have similar circumstances where grace is given.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Well, I was with you right up until there.

Fair. We can chase that white rabbit another day.

 

[Bradskii]

So in this case, stealing would be morally wrong and are deserving of consequences. However, stealing food to avoid starvation is understandable and is given some level of grace. I believe that other sins have similar circumstances where grace is given.

And those would include sex and killing. Under certain circumstances they become rape and murder. Relative to those circumstances.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

And those would include sex and killing. Under certain circumstances they become rape and murder. Relative to those circumstances.

Yes. Paul mentioned circumstances in which a spouse deliberately denied sexual intimacy with their spouse, killing another human being for self defense or as a consequence for certain crimes. Specifically, the adulterous woman whom Jesus forgave, both in a situation in which sexual sin was made, yet the penalty of death was graciously waved. That is one example in whish both sex and killing was shown grace.

Note:I just want to emphasize that in no way am I condoning spousal rape, but to emphasize that a spouse's deliberate rejection of physical intimacy is just as wrong as a person stealing food. Still wrong, but grace is given.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes. Paul mentioned circumstances in which a spouse deliberately denied sexual intimacy with their spouse, killing another human being for self defense or as a consequence for certain crimes. Specifically, the adulterous woman whom Jesus forgave, both in a situation in which sexual sin was made, yet the penalty of death was graciously waved. That is one example in whish both sex and killing was shown grace.

Am I to understand that showing grace is an acknowledgement that in committing the the 'crime' the person is deemed less culpable? So that they were 'less wrong'? So in the case of murder, we have 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree and manslaughter. So if the question is asked: 'Is murder always wrong?' we also have to consider the degree in which it is wrong. If indeed it could be considered wrong. Consider crimes of passion, most often related to French law, but this (from wiki):

'Until 1973, Texas had a law which stated: "Homicide is justifiable when committed by the husband upon one taken in the act of adultery with the wife...'

In which case, murder is not wrong.

Note:I just want to emphasize that in no way am I condoning spousal rape, but to emphasize that a spouse's deliberate rejection of physical intimacy is just as wrong as a person stealing food.

Whoa...

Did I read that right? A wife is wrong to reject sexual advances from her husband? In which case, in that circumstance, rape is not morally wrong? I hope I misread that.