Is there Objective Morality?

[Ken-1122]

Yes provable facts are not just about physical objects like the earth is round rather than flat.

Then provide a scenario of something immoral, and provide objective proof that it is immoral

If we see a child getting tortured, we don’t think that is how other people see the world and we should move on. No, we all think that must be stopped and justice must be done.

Depending on the type of torture, some people might think the child deserved it. Would you be able to objectively prove them wrong?

So why accept a skeptical attack on intuition if there is no evidence to support it.

Some might see the fact that everybody doesn’t agree on intuition, as evidence against it

Unless they can give us a good reason that female mutiliation is not objectively wrong that our moral intuitions should be doubted their argument is dead in the water.

Perhaps female mutilation/circumcision is not objectively wrong to some people for the same reason male mutilation/circumcision is not objectively wrong to others. Can you provide proof that any of them are wrong?

when we see a child or women being abused we don't just think it all depends on the subjective view. We want to stop the abuse because we know its wrong..

Wanting to stope it doesn’t make it objectively wrong though.
I’ll respond to the rest later.

 

[zippy2006]

I did a little more reading last night and I think I see where the confusion stems from. The divide is between moral realism and non-realism. Moral subjectivity is a form of non-realism, and relativism is a form of realism. That's the dividing line I'm talking about. So you think relativism is related to subjectivism because it involves some subjective things like culture, but I say relativism is related to objectivism because they both claim moral realism, i.e. facts.

Okay, so let's define moral realism:

Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately. (Wikipedia)

According to moral realists, statements about what actions are morally required or permissible and statements about what dispositions or character traits are morally virtuous or vicious (and so on) are not mere expressions of subjective preferences but are objectively true or false according as they correspond with the facts of morality—just as historical or geographic statements are true or false according as they fit the historical or geographic facts. (Britannica)

Taken at face value, the claim that Nigel has a moral obligation to keep his promise, like the claim that Nyx is a black cat, purports to report a fact and is true if things are as the claim purports. Moral realists are those who think that, in these respects, things should be taken at face value—moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, they hold, at least some moral claims actually are true. (SEP)
​

The divide is between moral realism and non-realism. Moral subjectivity is a form of non-realism, and relativism is a form of realism. That's the dividing line I'm talking about.

In my last post I said:

[Moral relativism] is probably not considered objective because it is reducible to a collection of subjective data points (i.e. a culture, a historical epoch, a group of people, or something along those lines).
​

So let's just take cultural moral relativism, since that is the most common. In that case suppose the moral relativist claims that the person who sacrifices a child is performing a morally upright action if they are Aztec, but is performing a morally wicked action if they are Christian (or European Christian).

Whether or not someone is Aztec is a fact, and so it could be said that this claim is factual and thus a form of moral realism. Further, we could say that it is a fact that Aztecs permit and practice child sacrifice. Nevertheless, this fact is merely reporting a collection of subjective opinions. Cultural moral relativism essentially polls a culture to determine whether some act is in accord with the culture. The appeal is thus to the collective opinion of the culture rather than to any super-subjective realities. For example, if tomorrow the Aztecs decide that child sacrifice is wrong, then either tomorrow or at some point in the future cultural moral relativists will affirm that child sacrifice is wrong for Aztecs, and the change occurs precisely because the subjective opinions of a large group of Aztecs changed. The moral theory requires nothing more than a change in subjective opinions to change the verdict, and everything the theory looks at in the first place is also legitimately reducible to subjective opinions (albeit groupings of them).

I don't think any morality based on intersubjective consensus is objective in the sense of "moral objectivism." In such cases the legitimacy of moral norms is always derived from a collection of subjective opinions. That is, the methodology is inherently ordered towards the subjective.

 

[zippy2006]

But there's no way to tell. Such a claim is not justifiable.

To cut to the chase a bit, let me ask this question: Do you hold that every single circumstantial theory is non-objective?

The one I clearly spelled out in post 262 (including providing a link to the post where the claim was first made) and which you quoted in post 273.

Whether to discipline a child will certainly depend on things, such as whether the child misbehaved.

So you would claim that punishing a child is based entirely on opinion, is not objective, and yet there is a correct, rational, and good way to do it?

I would say that there are circumstances where it is probably best for a child to be punished. If they steal a chocolate bar from the supermarket, for example, they should be punished in my opinion. I think most people would agree that a very low punishment (such as saying, "That was naughty, don't do it again") would be too little punishment. And I also think that most people would agree that an extreme punishment (torture, execution) is way too harsh a punishment. If you were to create a graph showing what a large sample of people thought was an appropriate punishment was, you'd probably find that they clustered around certain things. Maybe a lot of people would agree that the child should be grounded. But some people could say one week is fine, others might say that's not enough, and two weeks is more appropriate. The first group could say that two weeks is too much, and their original one week is better.

So how would you answer the question I asked? Is it objective or isn't it?

I agree that non-falsifiability is grounds for something to be considered non-objective, but why shouldn't the fact that it is circumstantial also be grounds?

Let's take something that is circumstantial.

Well I already gave two: the trajectory and destination of a projectile, and gravity on Mars. Are those objective or not?

I heard someone cry out in pain, I ran to help, saw an injured person on the ground and saw another person running away. Assuming that those are all objective facts, I might conclude that the person running away was the same person who committed the assault. But that conclusion is based on circumstantial evidence. If I claim that the runner was the attacker, that is not an objective claim.

In that case it sounds like you don't have enough information to make a claim with a sufficient level of certitude.

But I won’t believe you because your theory was disproved, not because it is circumstantial. A theory needs to account for data, whether the theory is circumstantial or not. If it doesn’t account for the data then it is falsified. Post hoc rationalizing a bad theory is a problem, but it isn’t a problem that per se attends circumstantial theories. The relevant circumstances just need to be spelled out ahead of time, when the theory is proposed, rather than after the fact.

But when we are given the excuse in real life, it always comes as a post hoc rationalisation. That's what I was talking about, I make post hoc explanations to avoid admitting I was wrong.

As I said, in order to avoid post hoc rationalization we tell the person that they have to set out their theory ahead of time in full, and there can be no redactions after it is set. We don't tell them the theory can't have circumstantial conditions. If that were true then the theory of gravity couldn't yield a different result for Earth and Mars.

Sorry, I can see how it would be unclear.

I was making the assumption that, given rational people, any fact that is objectively true as defined in post 101 would be held in agreement by all the people. In other words, given rational people, the existence of an objective fact will lead to all people agreeing on that particular issue.

But why think that? Einstein’s theories are objectively true and are not held in agreement by all people. When Copernicus argued for a heliocentric universe he was arguing in favor of an objective truth that was held by virtually no one. Heck, even the fact that the Earth is round is not held in agreement by all people. 'Seems like an erroneous assumption.

As noted earlier, difficult problems yield disagreement, but that doesn't make them non-objective.

 

[Kylie]

No because laws given by governments are still based on human subjective views. They just happen to be organised under some official banner. Whereas under the moral argument for God the reason a transcendent being is said to be the law maker is because objective morals have to originate from outside humans. We can only get objective morals from beyond humans whether individually or organised groups like governments.

That's not quite what I meant.

I've seen many times the argument that if there are natural laws (like the law of gravity, etc), then there must be a lawmaker, and this lawmaker is God. It is based on the flawed assumption that laws of nature are made the same way as laws of government. Laws of nature are not just something that some person or persons decided to enact the way people decide to enact a law against theft. The objectively true laws of nature are inherent properties of reality. If morality is objective, then they too must be inherent properties of reality and not something that was proclaimed by some entity. And that's a problem if we claim that God is the source of morality. If God says, "This particular thing is morally wrong," then it's still just some being declaring something to be the case. It's not based on some inherent aspect of reality. Thus, even if morality does come from a God, it's still subjective.

The example I am using is not about you being honest with someone else in knowing all the facts to ensure you are honest or any other specific situation about honesty.

It’s about an epistemic/moral value we use to measure things when interacting with others. So in our debate you have an implicit expectation that I should or anyone you debate should be honest with you, that I should not lie or misrepresent your arguments.

In this situation it will always be a good thing because without honesty between people in debates people cannot have coherent discussions. So in this case honesty stands on its own merit independently from people’s opinions as something needed in debates.

I get what you're saying, but I think you missed the point. A person could give incorrect information for many reasons. They may not have the whole picture, and so have reached an incorrect conclusion based on the incomplete data they have. Or their personal biases might be affecting them subconsciously. It does not need to involve any deliberate act of deception on their part from them to be wrong.

As explained above I am talking about honesty as a epistemic/moral value. As a guide or rule that governs the way people discuss things when seeking the truth of a matter.

Also more generally when you say honesty is not always morally good you are conflating the moral value of honesty which never changes with being honest in certain situations which doesn't devalue honesty itself but rather the circumstance determines not use honesty which is relative morality. You can' t have good and bad honesty. Honesty as an objective moral value is not changed but rather the situation in using it has. This is a common misunderstand people have.

Whether something is an honest statement or not can be objective, I agree. But honesty itself carries no moral weight. It is simply a measure of whether something is a true statement or not. Making an honest statement and whether it is morally correct to make such a statement are two different things.

That’s why lived experience is important because it’s not about correlations but factually living out morality. Regardless of opinions we see what people really believe by the way they act/react to moral situations and the fact is all people unless they are incapable of being constitutionally honest with themselves will react the same when having to live that moral out as opposed to verbalize it.

For example all people will act as though someone abusing their child is wrong. All people will act like someone stealing from them is wrong despite some of them claiming that stealing or abusing kids is OK. Show me a parent who is happy with someone abusing their kid or having someone steal their possessions.

Sadly, it does happen.

This story is a confronting one, I advise that you don't read it if the topic of sexual assault against children will be triggering for you: Martina's story | Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

The first paragraph states that Martina's father was abusing the children, and that Martina's mother knew but did nothing to stop it.

But this argument has been refuted because western societies condemn other societies for moral wrong when it doesn’t fit with their view of morality. We often here of western governments condemning the acts of Islamic people in mistreating their women. We hear of how barbaric it is for some African tribe to circumcise women. So it seems the type of morality in western societies is claimed to be the truth for all societies around the world.

This is the lived morality I am talking about. People can verbalize that under subjective or relative morality we should respect and allow different views of morality. As the saying goes you have your truth and I have mine so let’s not impose them on each other. But when people actually live out morality they cannot help but be objective about it because we all know there are certain moral truths in the universe that apply to all.

Not sure what point you are trying to make, since it fits perfectly with what I said.

We live in a particular society. Thus we have a moral compass that has been shaped by that society and the requirements we face living with other people within that society. Other societies have different moral compasses because their society is different to ours, and so they have developed different moral viewpoints.

We look at them and conclude those morals are bad because they do not match the morals that we have. However, this fails to see the point that people from those societies could just as easily look at us and claim we are the ones who are morally wrong because we do not fit with what they consider to be moral.

 

[Kylie]

You might like to think in this way but the inhumane are a lost cause. They can't be helped and in any case they have crossed an abyss from whence there is no return.

I have on a few occasions, tried to help people that are inhumane, though I didn't know they were inhumane at the time. I found it was useless. They are not helpable. They belong to a corrupt mindset. So if their circle of friends, you may have heard the catch cry "where would you be without your friends", anyway if their friends want to do them harm there is nothing they can to prevent being harmed because they are part and parcel of the same mindset. They have no independence, no free will.

Why help anyone who is part of a system that destroys other people's lives?

I think you missed my point.

 

[Kylie]

To cut to the chase a bit, let me ask this question: Do you hold that every single circumstantial theory is non-objective?

The circumstantial evidence itself may be objective (in the example I used later in the post you are quoting, the fact there was someone running away is objectively true, the fact someone was assaulted is objectively true), but the conclusion that is reached using this circumstantial evidence can't be held to be true.

Whether to discipline a child will certainly depend on things, such as whether the child misbehaved.

This sounds like it was answered by a politician.

I clearly stated I was talking about a disobedient child in post 162.

So how would you answer the question I asked? Is it objective or isn't it?

Why do you insist on yes/no answers to non-yes/no questions? I clearly stated my position.

In that case it sounds like you don't have enough information to make a claim with a sufficient level of certitude.

But it's based on CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.

As I said, in order to avoid post hoc rationalization we tell the person that they have to set out their theory ahead of time in full, and there can be no redactions after it is set. We don't tell them the theory can't have circumstantial conditions. If that were true then the theory of gravity couldn't yield a different result for Earth and Mars.

Okay then, let's try that with morality.

I will give you a situation and I want you to tell me what the morally correct thing would be for that situation. But before I tell you what the situation is, I want you to set out the moral viewpoints you will be using ahead of time, and you will not be allowed to redact it after it is set.

So please, lay out the moral framework you will be using.

It should be fairly straight forward, right? I mean, if I was doing this regarding the projectile trajectory on Mars, I could easily just provide a formula and say, "This variable here is where I plug in the value for Mars' gravity, this value is where I plug in atmospheric density, this value is where I plug in windspeed, etc." Can you do this sort of thing with morality?

But why think that? Einstein’s theories are objectively true and are not held in agreement by all people. When Copernicus argued for a heliocentric universe he was arguing in favor of an objective truth that was held by virtually no one. Heck, even the fact that the Earth is round is not held in agreement by all people. 'Seems like an erroneous assumption.

I will at this time point out that I clearly said RATIONAL people. I said this twice in the passage you quoted, yet you seem to have missed it both times.

In any case, given that relativity disagrees with quantum mechanics in certain situations, I think there's enough reason to rationally conclude that there are pieces of the puzzle that are missing. So I don't think we can say that relativity is ALWAYS going to be the best explanation. But that's getting off topic...

As noted earlier, difficult problems yield disagreement, but that doesn't make them non-objective.

If there is an objectively true solution to these problems, no matter how difficult, then all rational people will agree to it once it is shown.

Again, I said RATIONAL people.

 

[Ken-1122]

People can disagree but the point is they are agreeing or disagreeing about the truth or untruth of a matter. But to determine that truth they are both implicitly imposing honesty into their discussion because without each person being honest the truth can never be found and there would be nothing to agee or disagree about.

So when anyone is debating a matter the moral value of honesty is the rule and guide that ensures the debate is coherent and doesn’t fly off into all sorts of made up claims and misrepresentations. Each person knows intuitively and expects that honesty is respected as an objective value in their debate because it doesnt belong to anyones subjective view but is an independent value for all people.

But honesty cannot be used to determine an objective truth, because though both are being honest, their views will still differ. And as we agreed to earlier, sometimes honesty can be the wrong thing to do.

No person in a debate decides when and if Honesty is morally right. Its an independent reality in lived experience when having a debate/discussion between people seeking the truth of a matter. It cannot be denied if people want a coherent debate to find the truth.

I’m not talking about honesty in a debate, I’m talking about honesty that can get innocent people killed! Again; who decides when honesty is or is not the right thing to do?

 

[Will Joseph]

"What’s rape? What’s murder? A 19 year old guy has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend in the State of California it is rape. Go a couple miles East to the state of Nevada, and it’s not."

I believe rape is objectively wrong. In the bible, there is nothing permitting rape. There may be parts saying that some murders should be murdered and some theives should be punished by surrendering their own possessions, but rape is not a punishment nor justifiable.

Another reason why I feel that rape is objectively wrong is because it facilitates the spread of disease that can harm a rapist as much as a rape victim. When the crime can damage both and there is no benefit for either, then it's quite objectively wrong. Even a man can kill someone from a distance, but rape is usually too intimate and gets dirty.

The error of rape reminds of that of fornication:

"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."

I won't argue that fornication is objectively wrong but I know at least 50% of the human race will agree that rape is objectively wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

I believe rape is objectively wrong. In the bible, there is nothing permitting rape.

Most Bible Scholars agree Mary was between 12-14 years of age when Jesus was born. According to the state of California, that was rape.

I won't argue that fornication is objectively wrong but I know at least 50% of the human race will agree that rape is objectively wrong.

Even if both parties consent? Remember the scenario I presented.

 

[Will Joseph]

when referring to rape, I'm referring to its biblical definition and not a political definition.

And even in strange rape cases where both parties consent, disease can still be spread and damage both parties.

 

[Ken-1122]

when referring to rape, I'm referring to its biblical definition and not a political definition.

Perhaps you should have made that a bit more clear; because the person I was responding to was not referring to the Bible definition of rape.

 

[Kylie]

"What’s rape? What’s murder? A 19 year old guy has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend in the State of California it is rape. Go a couple miles East to the state of Nevada, and it’s not."

I believe rape is objectively wrong. In the bible, there is nothing permitting rape. There may be parts saying that some murders should be murdered and some theives should be punished by surrendering their own possessions, but rape is not a punishment nor justifiable.

Another reason why I feel that rape is objectively wrong is because it facilitates the spread of disease that can harm a rapist as much as a rape victim. When the crime can damage both and there is no benefit for either, then it's quite objectively wrong. Even a man can kill someone from a distance, but rape is usually too intimate and gets dirty.

The error of rape reminds of that of fornication:

"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."

I won't argue that fornication is objectively wrong but I know at least 50% of the human race will agree that rape is objectively wrong.

However, as Ken said, sometimes what counts as rape in one place is not rape in another. How can such a variable definition be used as part of an objective statement?

 

[Kylie]

when referring to rape, I'm referring to its biblical definition and not a political definition.

The Biblical definition of rape says that the woman must cry out, or it's not rape.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

So what if the rapist puts a gun to her head and says he'll kill her if she makes any sound?

And even in strange rape cases where both parties consent, disease can still be spread and damage both parties.

Any act of sex could do that. Sexually transmitted illness isn't confined to acts of rape, y'know. If that's a reason to outlaw rape, it's an equally valid reason to outlaw all sex.

 

[Moral Orel]

Taken at face value, the claim that Nigel has a moral obligation to keep his promise, like the claim that Nyx is a black cat, purports to report a fact and is true if things are as the claim purports. Moral realists are those who think that, in these respects, things should be taken at face value—moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, they hold, at least some moral claims actually are true. (SEP)

And there you go, the moral relativist thinks they can make a case for an objective morality.

I don't think any morality based on intersubjective consensus is objective in the sense of "moral objectivism." In such cases the legitimacy of moral norms is always derived from a collection of subjective opinions. That is, the methodology is inherently ordered towards the subjective.

Ahh, but the relativist is speaking of objectivity in the same sense you are. It doesn't matter if their methodology works or not to this discussion. We're talking about whether the theories of relativists and subjectivists are similar. They aren't because they make mutually exclusive claims about the nature of moral statements.

If you want to argue against moral relativism, be my guest. I see it as a huge argument from popularity fallacy myself. But the point behind all of this is that proving morality is relative doesn't prove that it's subjective. These aren't on the same spectrum. It's relativism vs absolutism and objectivism vs subjectivism. Subjectivism is the odd man out, everything else claims objectivity.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

No. There are values that are almost universally considered right or wrong, but universality and objectivity are not the same thing.

 

[stevevw]

Then provide a scenario of something immoral, and provide objective proof that it is immoral

I already did with the moral value of honesty being needed to have a meaningful and coherent debate/discussion between people who are seeking the truth of a matter. The onus is on the moral sceptic to show that our moral intuition is wrong. Can you show that honesty is not needed in a debate between people seeking honesty and that it stands as an independent moral value regardless of peoples subjective opinion.

Depending on the type of torture, some people might think the child deserved it.

Are you serious, depending on the type of torture. No torture is morally good. Can you show me an example of torturing a child for fun is morally good.

Would you be able to objectively prove them wrong?

You havent given any example of what you are talking about so I cannot know what it is I should prove them wrong about.

But the real point that shows abusing/torturing a child is intuitively recognised as being objectively wrong is that when people see someone abusing a child they immediately think its wrong and that the abuse should stop even before they find out what the reason is for the abusing/torturing the child.

People who see that abuse happening don't just walk on by and think the person abusing the child must have a good subjective moral reason and therefore will just keep on walking. No they want to stop the abuse immediately as they know its wrong. It provokes something in them which shows they intuitively know something is wrong.

This is that lived experience I am talking about. Its not what people say and theorize about but how moral wrongs impact on people in real situations. They act/react like morality is objective.

Some might see the fact that everybody doesn’t agree on intuition, as evidence against it

Perhaps female mutilation/circumcision is not objectively wrong to some people for the same reason male mutilation/circumcision is not objectively wrong to others. Can you provide proof that any of them are wrong?

Thats not the point. The point is like above people act/react like its wrong. The west speaks out against the African tribes who mutilate their women yet the same western society claims morals are subjective/relative. If morals were really subjective/relative then they would not condemn the African tribes. They would understand that different cultures have different relative morality.

From the African tribes relative position they may thiunk its morally OK so the west should respect that but they don't. The west acts like morality is objective and that their moral view that genital multilation is wrong should be applied to all the world. Thats objective morality no relative or subjective morality.

Once again this shows the reality of lived moral experience where people and even whole nations act like morality is objective when they apply it to real lived experiences.

Wanting to stop it doesn’t make it objectively wrong though.

You miss the point. As mentioned above, people want to stop the child abuse even before they find out what the reasons are for that child abuse. In otherwords they dont care about the reasons (the subjective reasons). All they know is the abuse should stop and there is no excuse for it. Thats objective because it doesnt allow for subjective reasons.

I’ll respond to the rest later.

No worries.

 

[Moral Orel]

The point is like above people act/react like its wrong.

Have you ever tasted some food or drink that you found just delicious, but when you mentioned to someone else they said it was disgusting, and you were shocked? You, if only for a short while, thought they were wrong to disagree with you. Surely if it tasted delicious, then it must truly be delicious, right?

Maybe you've seen a movie or television show or heard a song that you felt was a masterpiece, and are surprised to hear someone hate it. Surely you can't be wrong to like it. Surely it must truly be good and the other person is mistaken for hating it.

And yeah, when you stop to think about it you realize that different people have different tastes and preferences, but that initial gut reaction makes you feel that things you like are objectively good, even if the feeling is fleeting, doesn't it?

 

[o_mlly]

What’s rape? What’s murder? A 19 year old guy has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend in the State of California it is rape. Go a couple miles East to the state of Nevada, and it’s not.
If a guy is beating me up in my house and I’m afraid he is going to kill me, so I get my gun and shoot and kill him, is it murder? Suppose he is not in my house but on my property? Now is it murder? How about if he is not on my property, but on public land, and I kill him; now is it murder? It all depends on which state you are in. If we can’t decide what actions constitutes rape or murder, how on Earth are we supposed to agree if it is immoral or not?

Rape is the sexual violation of a person's body without their consent (there is no need to be more graphic for purposes of this thread). Statutory Rape extends the definition of rape to include those who cannot freely give consent. The age of consent is a matter of judgement.

Murder is the act that directly kills an innocent person. "Directly" means that the proximate end-in-view of the act is the death of an innocent for any actor. "Innocent" means that in the moment, the victim was not in the commission of a lethal act upon an innocent person.

Can you make an argument for circumstances that would make the acts of rape or murder moral acts?

 

[o_mlly]

"When used in the context of ethics, the meaning of universal refers to that which is true for "all similarly situated individuals.""

This is unrelated to whether "Rape is wrong" is an objective fact or a subjective opinion.

Can you make an argument for a case that justifies the acts of either rape or murder for "similarly situated individuals"?

 

[Will Joseph]

The Biblical definition of rape says that the woman must cry out, or it's not rape.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

So what if the rapist puts a gun to her head and says he'll kill her if she makes any sound?



Any act of sex could do that. Sexually transmitted illness isn't confined to acts of rape, y'know. If that's a reason to outlaw rape, it's an equally valid reason to outlaw all sex.

Rape is usually still bad for everyone because of its facility to spread disease. The powerful Lord strikes mankind with many unpredictable and devastating diseases.

Even when a woman doesn't yell, such sexual act is still not justified in the bible. In fact, it's considered adultery and both parties are considered to have done wrong. Again, nobody benefits and everyone gets hurt.

Rape is the lack of consent (where a woman is yelling) and the chance of spreading disease increases. She could be withholding consent because she has a sexually transmitted disease or cautious about diseases. There is no restraint or measure to control the disease, when there is no consent. However, with consent, there is a greater chance for observation of disease, cleanliness, and morality.