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.

 

[o_mlly]

Even if the claim was that all agree, it would be factually incorrect on top of a bandwagon fallacy.

How so? If you have an example demonstrating that rape is not wrong then the claim would be factually incorrect. If everyone agrees that a triangle is a three-sided polygon does that make the claim factually incorrect? No.

Remember, the claim I made was to a godless person. The atheist/agnostic is his own authority in all things. Appeals to the authority of another for an atheist are meaningless.

Specifically, regarding rape, there are cultures who believe that marital rape and some statutory rape are not only acceptable, but morally good.

Do you think forcing a spouse against their will to engage in sexual intercourse is wrong? Is genocide sometimes good because some countries at some time committed genocide? I think not. That rapists and murderers at someplace or sometime existed does not justify their acts.

Therefore, I think a more productive avenue for discussion is to shift to an ethical discussion as to why rape is wrong. If you keep asking the "why" questions, you will ultimately find that atheists cannot justify the reason and find that their godless world is one of pitiless indifference where they must find reasons to maintain their happy nihilism.

Go for it!

 

[o_mlly]

I'm not proving anything about any god. I just have never seen any evidence for one.

Yes. So your claim on His non-existence cannot be defended.

This claim is nonsensical. It is nowhere doing nothing for no time?

Yes, to He is "nowhere". No, to "doing nothing" at "no time".

I was making a defintion. Do you think so-called absolute morality is by definition only a proposal? Or do you claim it exists?

To a godless person, absolute morality can only be presented as a proposal. Do you acknowledge any authority exists that one can appeal to in support of the validity of such a claim?

We have his audio recording saying exactly that.

Can you provide a link? No one else can.

Inspecting claim Trump spoke approvingly about statutory rape in 2004 radio appearance

"The Daily Show" resurfaced the audio clip in question in a 2016 episode focused on Trump's comments about women.

www.snopes.com

 

[Oompa Loompa]

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.

My intention was not to suggest that marital rape was justified when the spouse denies intimacy. The intention was that depending on the circumstances, grace will be given to a spouse who is withholding intimacy.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

If you have an example demonstrating that rape is not wrong then the claim would be factually incorrect.

You are factually incorrect to say that everyone agrees rape is wrong. You are using a bandwagon fallacy by claiming rape is wrong because everyone agrees it is wrong.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Do you think forcing a spouse against their will to engage in sexual intercourse is wrong?

Yes. But in certain cultures, especially in the Middle East and South Asia, it is the duty of the wife to gratify the sexual needs of her husband. Therefore, in those cultures, spousal rape is often viewed as morally good when a wife refuses to fulfill her roll. Similar situation found in the Handmaid's Tale. Side note, handmaids do not wear red cloak and white bonnet, they wear black burkas.

 

[o_mlly]

You are factually incorrect to say that everyone agrees rape is wrong.

No one on this thread disagrees, so far ... except you?

 

[o_mlly]

But in certain cultures, especially in the Middle East and South Asia, it is the duty of the wife to gratify the sexual needs of her husband. Therefore, in those cultures, spousal rape is often viewed as morally good when a wife refuses to fulfill her roll.

The wife who acknowledges her marital duty is not raped.