Is there Objective Morality?

[durangodawood]

? It is self-demonstrated.

How do we know when something is truly self-evident rather than merely asserted?

 

[essentialsaltes]

If all moral issues are subjective then rape is not objectively immoral. Yes?

Leaving out irrational persons (as we did with "Flat Earthers"), what rational argument can you offer to conclude that rape is ever a moral act?

Once again, you seem confused about what objective and subjective mean. Being subjectively wrong doesn't mean 'sometimes it's moral and sometimes it isn't'.

 

[o_mlly]

How do we know when something is truly self-evident rather than merely asserted?

Could a reasonable person hold the opposite.

Once again, you seem confused about what objective and subjective mean. Being subjectively wrong doesn't mean 'sometimes it's moral and sometimes it isn't'.

Nope. The confusion seems to be on your end.

 

[Kylie]

If all moral issues are subjective then rape is not objectively immoral. Yes?

Leaving out irrational persons (as we did with "Flat Earthers"), what rational argument can you offer to conclude that rape is ever a moral act?

I agree that it's practically impossible to find some argument to justify rape, and I can't think of any arguments that don't fall into the realm of cartoonish supervillainy. "If you don't rape that person, the world will be blown up!"

That said, there are some cultures where spousal rape isn't a thing; where if the husband wants sex, he is within his legal rights to force his wife to submit to him. To people in such cultures, would they not think of this as being perfectly moral, even though we would call it rape?

So while I don't think rape is ever justified, I do recognize that there are cultures that hold moral viewpoints where rape is acceptable (at least in some cases), no matter how abhorrent I find such viewpoints.

 

[o_mlly]

So while I don't think rape is ever justified, I do recognize that there are cultures that hold moral viewpoints where rape is acceptable (at least in some cases), no matter how abhorrent I find such viewpoints.

I find such viewpoints abhorrent as well. However, under the rights to the marital embrace implicit in marriage contracts, a man or wife does not commit rape by having reasonable sexual intercourse with their lawful partner even if they act against the other's will. Of course, "reasonable" would limit the right to include only acts that would not injure the partner in some way.

So to avoid this debated narrow area of jurisprudence, let's define rape for purposes of this thread as any non-consensual sexual intercourse between non-spouses. Do you have an a rational argument that rape as defined in some circumstances may be a moral act?

 

[Tinker Grey]

However, under the rights to the marital embrace implicit in marriage contracts, a man or wife does not commit rape by having reasonable sexual intercourse with their lawful partner even if they act against the other's will.

One of the most repulsive things I've ever read. And, if the partner doesn't consent, you've injured that partner.

 

[Bradskii]

However, under the rights to the marital embrace implicit in marriage contracts, a man or wife does not commit rape by having reasonable sexual intercourse with their lawful partner even if they act against the other's will.

This sounds like something Ripperger might suggest. But surely not. Who on earth would agree to this?

 

[Kylie]

I find such viewpoints abhorrent as well. However, under the rights to the marital embrace implicit in marriage contracts, a man or wife does not commit rape by having reasonable sexual intercourse with their lawful partner even if they act against the other's will. Of course, "reasonable" would limit the right to include only acts that would not injure the partner in some way.

So to avoid this debated narrow area of jurisprudence, let's define rape for purposes of this thread as any non-consensual sexual intercourse between non-spouses. Do you have an a rational argument that rape as defined in some circumstances may be a moral act?

No, I don't. But then it's not my responsibility to do so. I have the position that even though I find rape to be reprehensible, there are people out there with a moral code sufficiently different to mine that they can see rape as being morally acceptable. The fact that I can acknowledge that such people exists does not mean I am responsible for trying to justify their morality, and I'm not going to do it.

To put it another way:

The United States still has the death penalty. Many people in the USA hold the moral viewpoint that the death penalty is morally wrong. Yet, these people who are against the death penalty know that not everyone shares their views, and that there are some people who think the death penalty is acceptable. Yet it is not up to those against the death penalty to find a moral justification for that penalty.

 

[Ken-1122]

If all moral issues are subjective then rape is not objectively immoral. Yes?

Correct. Nothing is objectively immoral even rape; it is all subjectively immoral

 

[o_mlly]

One of the most repulsive things I've ever read. And, if the partner doesn't consent, you've injured that partner.

This sounds like something Ripperger might suggest. But surely not. Who on earth would agree to this?

Then you both must find a husband's insistence objectively immoral, no? But the kidnapping and raping of a child ...? "Oh, now hold on a minute ... that'd be different ... you know, different strokes for different folks."

"One of the most repulsive things .." Really? Such righteous indignation suggests one might need to get out more often. To wit: 44 Days Of Kidnapping, Rape and Torture

 

[o_mlly]

No, I don't. But then it's not my responsibility to do so. I have the position that even though I find rape to be reprehensible, there are people out there with a moral code sufficiently different to mine that they can see rape as being morally acceptable. The fact that I can acknowledge that such people exists does not mean I am responsible for trying to justify their morality, and I'm not going to do it.

Back to the “Flat Earthers”?

Using the same logic would conclude that there can be no objective scientific claims or any objective claims at all. Only a universal consensus could justify a claim as objective. We exist perpetually in the realm of doubt.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Then you both must find a husband's insistence objectively immoral, no? But the kidnapping and raping of a child ...? "Oh, now hold on a minute ... that'd be different ... you know, different strokes for different folks."

"One of the most repulsive things .." Really? Such righteous indignation suggests one might need to get out more often. To wit: 44 Days Of Kidnapping, Rape and Torture

Repulsive suggests taste does it not. Ergo, it's subjectively immoral. "One of" does not mean "there cannot be things more repulsive".

That a person could put forth that forcing a spouse to have sex is not immoral suggests a lack of the single most fundamental quality for a discussion on morality: empathy.

 

[o_mlly]

Repulsive suggests taste does it not. Ergo, it's subjectively immoral. "One of" does not mean "there cannot be things more repulsive".

No, "repulsive" does not suggest taste - Do magnets set pole to pole feel like repelling each other?

The correct quote from your post is not merely "One of" but "One of the most ..." which means that this act is on your short list of immoral acts.

That a person could put forth that forcing a spouse to have sex is not immoral suggests a lack of the single most fundamental quality for a discussion on morality: empathy.

Who promoted such an idea?

there are some cultures where spousal rape isn't a thing; where if the husband wants sex, he is within his legal rights to force his wife to submit to him. To people in such cultures, would they not think of this as being perfectly moral, even though we would call it rape?

Deflection, deflection, and more deflection ... can we get back to the argument that "non-spousal" rape is objectively immoral? If you disagree then give us the rationale indicating the circumstances that rape is a moral act.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No, "repulsive" does not suggest taste - Do magnets set pole to pole feel like repelling each other?

I'm surprised you didn't tell me that repelling was the act of descending a cliff. (Different word, but...)

 

[o_mlly]

I'm surprised you didn't tell me that repelling was the act of descending a cliff.

If so then you are easily surprised. One can rappel until they are at the end of their rope. Let's us know when that happens.

 

[Ken-1122]

Deflection, deflection, and more deflection ... can we get back to the argument that "non-spousal" rape is objectively immoral? If you disagree then give us the rationale indicating the circumstances that rape is a moral act.

You appear to be confusing ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism. If someone says rape is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that it's "not wrong.”

 

[Moral Orel]

If you don't think something is objective then you shouldn't be arguing over it. It's that simple. Hence "argument presupposes objectivity."

In the other thread I defined objective as "true and accessible to all." If you don't think the claim you are making is true and accessible to your interlocutor, then you shouldn't be arguing about it with him.

Hmmm... I asked if you ever do it too, and you haven't answered. I'm guessing that's a "Yes, but I'm not giving you the satisfaction".

But let's explore it. Why shouldn't I make such an argument? I want you to agree with me, and my argument (though it will undoubtedly be filled with logical fallacies) may cause you to agree with me anyways. So it seems to be an effective means to get what I would like. Why shouldn't I use effective means towards my goals?

Also, I did move it to the other thread.

 

[Bradskii]

Then you both must find a husband's insistence objectively immoral, no? But the kidnapping and raping of a child ...? "Oh, now hold on a minute ... that'd be different ... you know, different strokes for different folks."

"One of the most repulsive things .." Really? Such righteous indignation suggests one might need to get out more often. To wit: 44 Days Of Kidnapping, Rape and Torture

If you're suggesting that it's all relative then I tend to agree. But was it Ripperger? I know you're a big fan. Seems like something he'd suggest. You know, women should know their place.

 

[zippy2006]

Sure. It's an objective fact that we have these randomly generated characteristics that increase survivability (assuming that you accept the premise - and it's only a premise). And it's an objective fact that these characteristics have been selected for in the evolutionary process. But that just determines that which works. Which we call 'good'. It doesn't determine the morality of what we do. That's us trying to work out why we do what we do. That's us looking for meaning.

Well, if a morality is based on survival then things which increase survivability are moral, and objectively so. "What we do" is survive, and you have claimed that protocols which outline how we should act in order to survive are "termed morality":

...we have then developed protocols by which we have used to live together and survive. Those protocols we have termed morality. That is, how we should act (in order to survive).

 

[zippy2006]

Hmmm... I asked if you ever do it too, and you haven't answered. I'm guessing that's a "Yes, but I'm not giving you the satisfaction".

I have. I was responding from a cell phone, so I didn't write a long response.

But let's explore it. Why shouldn't I make such an argument? I want you to agree with me, and my argument (though it will undoubtedly be filled with logical fallacies) may cause you to agree with me anyways. So it seems to be an effective means to get what I would like. Why shouldn't I use effective means towards my goals?

You can use purposely fallacious reasoning to trick someone into believing an invalid argument. What you can't do is believe that your argument is rational. My claims were made under the assumption that people don't argue in a purposely fallacious way. It would seem that that is not what argument is. That's more like propaganda than argument.