Is there Objective Morality?

[o_mlly]

You've given your answer on the matter. Albeit a completely unreasonable one. But we now know your position. Everything that you say is bad must be bad because you say it is bad. Even if the people directly involved would say otherwise. What else is there to discuss?

We're still waiting for your "good" rape case. You know, one at least based on some semblance of reality. Did your happy couple still divorce? Get real, man.

All I need do is demonstrate one rape case that is objectively bad to disprove the claim that morality is subjective. So tell us, was Fred raping Wendy only bad if Fred thought it was so, you know, just subjectively bad.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-
All I need do is demonstrate one rape case that is objectively bad -snip-

Sure, go ahead.

 

[Bradskii]

We're still waiting for your "good" rape case.

The one that you said was objectively bad? That one? That's done and dusted. Presented and responded to. And the response was all that was needed to clarify your position. I mean, there really isn't anything else to be discussed.

I know that you hold to an absolute morality. Which means that acts such as lying and stealing are always bad. So always objectively bad by definition. Whatever the circumstances. Whatever the result. Whatever anyone thinks. Whatever the outcome (you'd be the one saying 'the family is hiding in the basement'). And maybe you thought that you were on safer ground using rape as an example. I mean, who could think of a circumstance where a victim was glad that it occured?

It might have shortened the thread had you stated your position as an Absolutist up front. Which is effectively your argument: X is absolutely wrong, therefore no suggestions that it might not be objectively wrong can be considered.

I think most people would have realised that this was then going to be a waste of time.

 

[Bradskii]

So you think it was a good rape? Try again.

This is definitely a blind spot that you have. You seem to think that if anyone argues that something is not objectively bad, then they must be arguing that it's good. It just shows that you haven't grasped (or more likely refuse to acknowledge) the position of others.

Why is this such a common problem?

 

[o_mlly]

The one that you said was objectively bad? That one? That's done and dusted.

Why do you keep trying to run away from giving us the "good" rape case. Your first effort just doesn't make sense. I know, I know ... you tried really hard to conjure up your "technical" rape but it was just idiotic. Try something from reality this time.

I know that you hold to an absolute morality. Which means that acts such as lying and stealing are always bad.

We know why you want desperately to change the subject from rape to some other act, as you've got no "good" rape story to share. The reason you can't give a "good" rape story is because there isn't one. Or did you give "Fred" an atta-boy for raping Wendy? If so, explain your reasoning.

It might have shortened the thread had you stated your position as an Absolutist up front.

Still getting straw by the truckload, I see. I know what I think, you obviously don't. We just want you to know tell us what you think a "good" rape looks like. Got anything?

 

[VirOptimus]

The non-believers are "mobbing" the thread with inane posts which is their usual tactic to kill a thread when they cannot defend their position. After 1000 posts, I'm only going to respond to posts that offer new arguments.

Do objective morality have anything to do with god(s)?

 

[essentialsaltes]

No. Objective facts are never given.

There is an apple on my desk. It's an objective fact. It's just a brute fact of reality, like the objective existence of gravity.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But would you say that you believe "nastiness" is a property of Brussel sprouts? I wouldn't.

Me neither.

In terms of morality, I don't hold a belief about some quality of "wrongness" that an act has. I hate some acts, and I love some acts.

I don't think we're in disagreement. If morality is subjective (and only subjective) then all it is is people making internal judgments/opinions about various acts. It is not an intrinsic property of the act.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Really, then help your cohort out. Maybe you can give us that "good" rape case.

Your request is pointless. You yourself have already given the example of Dahmer and cannibalism and stipulated that he thought they were good acts. If Dahmer's ghost came here and described his cannibalism as good. Or the Teardrop Rapist dropped by to explain how his rape was morally justified by 'what she was wearing' or 'the essential wickedness of all women', we would be no closer to anything.

Many rapists could sincerely fulfill your request. So what?

 

[stevevw]

As I dont think ”objective” is a meaningful term, no.

But it is a fact.

how is it a fact

 

[stevevw]

Don't confuse objective facts with objective morality.

How is making a truth claim a fact like that of science. Though its different was in a belief about something both morality and belief are immaterial.

 

[stevevw]

The fact that we do have the same 'intuition' doesn't indicate that there is some objective moral standard 'out there' to which we all have some mysterious access (that's a religious view). It's that we all have had the same experiences which we call good and bad because, as has been said, they work.

We've all been insulted at some time. We all have had something stolen. We have all felt threatened with violence. We've all experienced honourable acts and courage and generosity and miserliness etc. And some of those acts we deem good and some bad. Simply because they impact society in either a good way or a bad way.

But that you prescribe them as good and bad points to an objective measure. Otherwise their just preferences and we know from preferences that people have a varied preference despite living the same experience. We are not robots.

If we said that everyone likes chocoalte icecream then we would think something strange is going on with that chocolate icecream being so popular. Something with the chocolate icecream itself. It just doesn't make sense if there are individual experienecs of icecream.

 

[partinobodycular]

This thread is moving much too quickly for me, but I'll try to jump in here and make another attempt to address your question.

We're still waiting for your "good" rape case. You know, one at least based on some semblance of reality.

First, let me say that I cringe every time that you pose this question, because it's so incredibly deceptive that it borders on being deceitful. Of course everybody is going to think that every case of rape is bad, because that's the means by which they judge it to be rape. If they didn't think it was bad, then they also wouldn't think it was rape. The two will always go together, even in cases where one person thinks that the act is rape and another person doesn't. One will think the act was bad, and the other one won't. You can hardly call it objective when it's seemingly impossible to definitively prove which of them is right.

So I do wish that you'd stop asking for an example of a "good" rape, but I'm quite sure that you won't, because you think that it's brilliant, when what it actually is, is disingenuous.

That having been said, I'm going to point out a seemingly problematic consequence of one of your previous definitions of rape.

I'm not a psychologist. IMO, a non-consensual sexual act occurs if either one or both of the partners is unable comprehend the possible effects of their act. So, age is not a criterion for one who has mental health issues or is unconscious or under the influence of drugs/alcohol to the point of losing rationality.

So if a man and woman have sex while the woman is too drunk to form a rational decision to do so, then it's rape. But the problematic thing is, that this should hold true even if they're married. Thus a married couple can have consensual sex, and yet it's still possible for it to be rape.

But the more bizarre thing is, when does it become rape?

Is it rape the moment that they have sex without the woman's rational consent? That would seem to be the implication of your definition, or is it only rape once the woman has sobered up, and retroactively decides whether or not to give consent?

That means that in the case of the former, if a man has sex with his drunk wife, it's always rape, because she was unable to give rational consent at the time that the act occurred.

Would you care to clarify your position?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Many "flat earthers" are sincere. So what?

Beats me, the earth certainly doesn't care. It goes on being spherical. In reality land. A satellite photo demonstrates the roundness, without any reference to human opinions.

But video footage of a rape does not demonstrate any wrongness. What other means might we use to demonstrate its objective wrongness?

 

[partinobodycular]

But because most people seem to come to the same conclusions about moral intuition this doesnt point to bias as the results would be more varied as people have individualized experiences and therefore there would be more varied intuition about morality as a result.

I would disagree. I think that many of our moral biases are formed extremely early in our childhood, both prior to, and through the point that we begin to gain an understanding of language. At this early stage in our development we naturally learn to characterize our experiences as simply being good or bad, and this is reinforced by the things in our environment. But this occurs very, very early in our childhood development, and it's only later that our more nuanced/individual biases begin to emerge.

But those core moral values are so universal simply because they form so early, when our capacity to reason about what's good or bad hasn't yet developed. Our more personal biases may be the result of a more individualized process that starts when we begin to consciously rationalize/categorize our experiences and not merely assimilate them.

So I think that our moral biases are part of that early process of childhood development, while our more individualized biases are the result of later experiences, and that both of them work together to guide our intuition.

Keep in mind, that I'm thinking this through on the fly, so it may not be well thought out at the moment. But hopefully it's coherent enough for you to follow.

 

[o_mlly]

Of course everybody is going to think that every case of rape is bad, because that's the means by which they judge it to be rape. If they didn't think it was bad, then they also wouldn't think it was rape.

Everybody? Then you must agree with me that Bradski's "good" rape case is pretty lame.

First, let me say that I cringe every time that you pose this question, because it's so incredibly deceptive that it borders on being deceitful.

Well, let me suggest the reason you cringe is that you just don't have an answer. But let me get this straight: because you have no answer then I must be ("borderline" for the moderator's benefit) deceitful. Sorry, but you'll just have to keep on cringing.

So if a man and woman have sex while the woman is too drunk to form a rational decision to do so, then it's rape.

This is not the legal forum. You'll have to ask Bradski. He's the expert on legalisms as it relate to sex acts between non-consenting adults.

I'm interested in the morality of the act. Do you think it moral to have sex with an unconscious woman who is not your wife? Does that conclusion change if the woman is your wife? And does that decision change if she's divorcing you for another lover? Give Brad all the details of your scenario to get his legal opinion. All I'm looking for it an example of a "good" rape.

 

[partinobodycular]

Everybody? Then you must agree with me that Bradski's "good" rape case is pretty lame.

In a sense it is a pointless endeavor, because the very fact that one is characterizing it as rape, preordains the fact that it's bad. But what Bradskii is attempting to demonstrate is that certain sexual acts can be characterized as bad/rape from one perspective and yet characterized as good/moral from another perspective, and those two things can't be mutually objective, therefore they must be subjective.

Well, let me suggest the reason you cringe is that you just don't have an answer.

What I don't have an answer for is your seeming inability to recognize the irrationality of your question.

Sorry, but you'll just have to keep on cringing.

If I must.

This is not the legal forum. You'll have to ask Bradski. He's the expert on legalisms as it relate to sex acts between non-consenting adults.

It was your definition after all, so it seems only reasonable to come to you for the answer, but I completely understand if you're unwilling or unable to give one.

 

[o_mlly]

But what Bradskii is attempting to demonstrate is that certain sexual acts can be characterized as bad/rape from one perspective and yet characterized as good/moral from another perspective, and those two things can't be mutually objective, therefore they must be subjective.

What? This is a bad case of word salad.

What I don't have an answer for is your seeming inability to recognize the irrationality of your question.

The question should appear quite rational to those who insist that rape is merely subjectively immoral. If rape is only subjectively immoral then there exists a rational person who can demonstrate a "good" rape. What is irrational is to claim that a "good" rape is possible but have no rationale to support the claim.

 

[o_mlly]

It was your definition after all, so it seems only reasonable to come to you for the answer, but I completely understand if you're unwilling or unable to give one.

I did.

This is not the legal forum. You'll have to ask Bradski. He's the expert on legalisms as it relate to sex acts between non-consenting adults.

I'm interested in the morality of the act. Do you think it moral to have sex with an unconscious woman who is not your wife? Does that conclusion change if the woman is your wife? And does that decision change if she's divorcing you for another lover? Give Brad all the details of your scenario to get his legal opinion. All I'm looking for it an example of a "good" rape.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm interested in the morality of the act. Do you think it moral to have sex with an unconscious woman who is not your wife? Does that conclusion change if the woman is your wife? And does that decision change if she's divorcing you for another lover? Give Brad all the details of your scenario to get his legal opinion. All I'm looking for it an example of a "good" rape.

Not all acts are good or bad, some are neutral. Suppose I said rape is neither good nor bad but neutral? How would you prove me wrong? If rape is objectively wrong, you would be able to prove it wrong, not just voice your subjective opinion that it is wrong.