Morality without Absolute Morality

[zippy2006]

Presumably Catholics and Mormons believe in the same deity

It is generally recognized that they do not. For example, Catholics do not recognize Mormon baptism because it is not Trinitarian, and is therefore not a baptism into the Trinitarian God. The Mormon god is a very radical departure from classical theism and Christian theology.

 

[zippy2006]

A: '...certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context, culture, or circumstances.'
B: Yet when I asked you if you'd given due regard to the context, you answered 'Yes'. You gave the specific context. Quote: 'She refused consent'.

Again, "without consent" it not a context in which rape is permissible. You are playing word games. The definition:

Absolute morality is the ethical belief that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context...

You are claiming, "The act of rape is not wrong in the context where it is consensual, therefore it is not absolute." This is clearly sophistry. The definition is saying that the moral absolutist thinks there are acts that are always wrong, including in every context. So if someone thinks an act such as rape is always wrong, including within every context, then they are a moral absolutist. That's what the definition says.

• Moral Absolutist: The act of rape is always wrong, and is therefore a moral absolute.
• Bradskii: But it isn't wrong in the context where it is consensual, and therefore it is not absolutely wrong.
• Moral Absolutist: When is rape consensual?
• Bradskii: Never.
• Moral Absolutist: Correct, and therefore "the case where rape is consensual" is not a case where rape is not wrong. Such a case does not even exist. The one who pretends it exists is being dishonest.

 

[NxNW]

It is generally recognized that they do not. For example, Catholics do not recognize Mormon baptism because it is not Trinitarian, and is therefore not a baptism into the Trinitarian God. The Mormon god is a very radical departure from classical theism and Christian theology.

And yet they each use the same Bible, though they each have supplemental material, too.

 

[NxNW]

You are claiming, "The act of rape is not wrong in the context where it is consensual, therefore it is not absolute." This is clearly sophistry.

If I can jump in, the definition of consent can be verrry nebulous. How many drinks does it take before someone can no longer consent, even if they appear to be conscious?

'Talking to Strangers', by Malcolm Gladwell discusses this, and the book examines some notorious rape cases. They're not as cut-and-dried as popular opinion would have us believe, due to delays in reporting the event, and limited or contradictory information by witnesses.

Years ago, I got back from a night of serious boozing with a friend and his girlfriend. I was in the next room when he put her to bed, and then he came out for a moment saying she was getting frisky. I was pretty out-of-it, and fell asleep. The next morning, she said she couldn't remember anything after leaving the bar, yet the boyfriend and I had seen her vertical and eyes open. She must have been blackout drunk. Was it a rape? I guess today it would be considered as such. At the time, we all laughed it off. If she'd remembered it while being tipsy at the time, would it be a rape? I don't know.

There was a case a few years back in which a college girl was sleeping with her boyfriend. He left and another guy slipped into bed behind her, and touched her sexually. Only later did she realize it was someone else. The case was dismissed. What a mess.

 

[Bradskii]

We have God, and Jesus is our way to God and to His benefits of His morality.

But they give different guidance to different people!

 

[Bradskii]

Again, "without consent" it not a context in which rape is permissible.

Correct! The context is included in the term. Just like it is with murder.

'Sexual intercourse without consent' and 'rape' mean exactly the same thing. They are interchangeable. You can substitute one with the other. But you want to somehow deny that.

Sorry. You can't. Again, the context is included in both. Which you will now illustrate for everyone's benefit by giving the definition of rape:

'The definition of rape is...'

Please fill in the rest. Thanks in advance.

 

[Larniavc]

But if there is a crime of rape between husband and wife then it would be absolute? Isn't that what you are saying?

No. The fact that rape was seen as allowed at some point means that moral vary over time and are not absolute.

 

[Larniavc]

Ahh, there's the rub. What you mean based on your posts is, "I'm still left with trying to interpret it". Even in the act of rape, you need interpretation!

Is an apology forthcoming?

I ask again, are atheists who claim that even the morality of rape is in need of interpretation think that no absolute "rules exist at all". If so then by your insight that makes them closet sociopaths.

I would think rape is as close to a moral absolute is you can get. But as there have been people who disagree we cannot say that it is truly absolute.

 

[Larniavc]

You confuse morality as being equivalent to legality.

And that law was there because people thought it was moral.