Rape proves objective morality?

Hikarifuru · Sep 4, 2014

Isn't using something like a person being raped the most disgusting and inconsiderate way to try to prove that morality can be objective?

Isn't it complete ignorance of why almost no one likes being raped? Sense it's completely obvious why most humans don't want someone to beat them up and force them to have sex with them why would this imply that there is a law above our emotions?

Why would they think most people not wanting to be raped proved the existence of a law higher than our emotions?

I wonder if men would try to argue this before women, since women actually fear rape a lot more than men do since men commonly do the raping.

Paradoxum · Sep 4, 2014

I don't think hating something being done to you proves objective morality.

But I used this argument when I was a Christian though, and I don't think using rape as an example for something 'obviously' wrong is disgusting .

Hikarifuru · Sep 4, 2014

Paradoxum

I don't think hating something being done to you proves objective morality.

Well it would seem to be the exact opposite.

But I used this argument when I was a Christian though, and I don't think using rape as an example for something 'obviously' wrong is disgusting

I agreed that it's OBVIOUSLY wrong, but what about objectively wrong? Why should we use something so horrifying and painful and despicable to prove that there is a moral code above our emotions?

Strathos · Sep 4, 2014

If rape is non-consensual sex, then isn't it part of the definition that the victim doesn't want it?

Hikarifuru · Sep 4, 2014

Strathos said:
If rape is non-consensual sex, then isn't it part of the definition that the victim doesn't want it?

heh yep

yasic · Sep 4, 2014

The very fact that rape is very common and done by many people demonstrates that quite a few people do not actually view rape as bad, so any argument that "everyone finds rape to be wrong" is simply not true and thus as conclusions drawn from it also are not.

wanderingone · Sep 5, 2014

yasic said:
The very fact that rape is very common and done by many people demonstrates that quite a few people do not actually view rape as bad, so any argument that "everyone finds rape to be wrong" is simply not true and thus as conclusions drawn from it also are not.

People committing an act doesn't indicate they think it's "good"

Obviously one cannot say "everyone" about anything.

Hikarifuru · Sep 5, 2014

wanderingone

People committing an act doesn't indicate they think it's "good"

Why not? How can you intentionally do something without desiring to do it and if you desire to do it doesn't that fulfill the meaning of thinking it is good?

Being conflicted on something you did doesn't establish that you didn't want to do it.

Eudaimonist · Sep 5, 2014

DeanW said:
Why would they think most people not wanting to be raped proved the existence of a law higher than our emotions?

Because it shows that objections to rape are not merely a matter of taste, but that there is something about rape itself that makes it bad. The person who makes that suggestion is asking you to reflect on the subject so that you will see that it is not just about emotions, but about something deeper than them -- the objective harm done and objective potential lost.

eudaimonia,

Mark

leftrightleftrightleft · Sep 5, 2014

DeanW said:
How can you intentionally do something without desiring to do it

You cannot intentionally do something without desiring to do it, by definition. I agree.

and if you desire to do it doesn't that fulfill the meaning of thinking it is good?

No. That's a non sequitur. Desire to perform an action has no relationship with the morality of an action UNLESS you prescribe to a view of morality that is strictly and perfectly subjective.

I think morality is usually viewed as either objective or at least relative to others in a group or society. Rarely do I see people that view morality as strictly subjective (meaning that if you think it is good then it is good by definition)

I think a strictly subjective morality falls apart instantly because it means that nothing anyone else does is good nor bad and thus morality doesn't really exist.

Being conflicted on something you did doesn't establish that you didn't want to do it.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Its hard to ascribe intents after the fact.

Hikarifuru · Sep 5, 2014

Eudaimonist said:
Because it shows that objections to rape are not merely a matter of taste, but that there is something about rape itself that makes it bad. The person who makes that suggestion is asking you to reflect on the subject so that you will see that it is not just about emotions, but about something deeper than them -- the objective harm done and objective potential lost.

eudaimonia,

Mark

How does something that is severelly emotional and almost everyone feels so emotional about show that emotions are not the root of issue?

Hikarifuru · Sep 5, 2014

leftrightleftrightleft

No. That's a non sequitur. Desire to perform an action has no relationship with the morality of an action UNLESS you prescribe to a view of morality that is strictly and perfectly subjective.

I wasn't trying to establish that the person was correct when they felt that it was good, I was saying that if you do it then that should mean they thought it was good.

I do think all morality is purely subjective, I don't know of any moral system that does not contain a bias, even if though most people tend to think their system is objective.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Its hard to ascribe intents after the fact.

If they intended to do what they did then it's not an issue at all. Otherwise they wouldn't have done it. If you chose to do it then you intended to do it and this should show that they thought it was good to do.

Rubiks · Sep 5, 2014

I think people use it to demonstrate the consequences of subjective moral standards. I don't think this usage is inconsiderate, although I wouldn't use it around a woman who has been a victim of rape.

keith99 · Sep 5, 2014

This usage is flat out stupid as rape has NOT always been considered wrong in ALL situations.

It is very difficult to find something universally condemned and the lazy will just grab for something emotional.

Eudaimonist · Sep 5, 2014

DeanW said:
How does something that is severelly emotional and almost everyone feels so emotional about show that emotions are not the root of issue?

What you should be asking yourself is what it is in the reality of the situation that is triggering the emotions. You may find that rape isn't seen as wrong simply because of the existence of the emotions, but because of the understanding of the situation that causes those emotional reactions.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Eudaimonist · Sep 5, 2014

keith99 said:
This usage is flat out stupid as rape has NOT always been considered wrong in ALL situations.

It is very difficult to find something universally condemned

Objective morality is beyond what people happen to condemn. Even in a society where the cultural view is that rape is okay, it can still be objectively wrong.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Hikarifuru · Sep 5, 2014

Eudaimonist said:
Objective morality is beyond what people happen to condemn. Even in a society where the cultural view is that rape is okay, it can still be objectively wrong.

eudaimonia,

Mark

What evidence supports it being objectively wrong?

Hikarifuru · Sep 5, 2014

Eudaimonist said:
What you should be asking yourself is what it is in the reality of the situation that is triggering the emotions. You may find that rape isn't seen as wrong simply because of the existence of the emotions, but because of the understanding of the situation that causes those emotional reactions.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Even though our emotional reaction or bias is not voluntary, its still emotion or bias, its still subjective.

wanderingone · Sep 5, 2014

DeanW said:
wanderingone

Why not? How can you intentionally do something without desiring to do it and if you desire to do it doesn't that fulfill the meaning of thinking it is good?

Being conflicted on something you did doesn't establish that you didn't want to do it.

People intentionally do things all the time that they don't believe to be "good". Wanting something in the moment, feeling compelled to do something, complying with a directive, etc.. none of those things mean you believe that something to be "good"

It's nothing to do with being conflicted, about something after. There are plenty of people who don't feel guilty even while acknowledging they believe their actions are "bad".

keith99 · Sep 5, 2014

Eudaimonist said:
Objective morality is beyond what people happen to condemn. Even in a society where the cultural view is that rape is okay, it can still be objectively wrong.

eudaimonia,

Mark

True and if some objective argument can be made regarding rape it would then be fair game. But if the only argument is emotional or that the individual spoken to holds it as wrong in all cases then no case has been made. I was thinking about a the idea that some things are held as wrong by all cultures as a starting point for an argument for objective morality.

Rape proves objective morality?

Shine Bravely

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

Shine Bravely

No one important

Shine Bravely

Part time poster, Full time lurker

I'm not lost I'm just wandering

Shine Bravely

I believe in life before death!

Well-Known Member

Shine Bravely

Shine Bravely

proud libtard

sola dosis facit venenum

I believe in life before death!

I believe in life before death!

Shine Bravely

Shine Bravely

I'm not lost I'm just wandering

sola dosis facit venenum

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency