Rape proves objective morality?

[Hikarifuru]

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".

If you purpose to do something then you want to do it, if you want to do it then you think it serves a good purpose. Even if you feel it to be bad in some way.

 

[Strathos]

Isn't saying "I want to be raped" about as logical as saying "this sentence is a lie"?

 

[Hikarifuru]

keith99

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.

If every human on earth agreed that something is wrong that wouldn't indicate that they aren't bias in their consideration so it could still be subjective. If the moral system depends on you personally valuing the rule that it is based on it's still subjective.

Rape seems like an objectively immoral action because it's so destructive that almost everyone shares the subjective reasoning on it, but that wouldn't make it an objective moral view because they are still showing bias in their thinking that the rule that they base their reasoning on should be the one to determine morality. The scientific proof that it hurts people or hurts peoples feelings may be legit, but you can't scientifically prove that that data should be what determines good or bad, it's still bias so it's still subjective.

 

[Paradoxum]

Well it would seem to be the exact opposite.

I don't think it goes either way.

I agreed that it's OBVIOUSLY wrong, but what about objectively wrong?

I think it might be objectively wrong, but I don't think you can show that through a consensus that something is very bad.

Why should we use something so horrifying and painful and despicable to prove that there is a moral code above our emotions?

Why not?

 

[Cearbhall]

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

People do this? I agree with you. I can't see the logic.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

How are you defining Objective morality? I have always understood objective as something based upon fact; something that can be demonstrated, like math. But how do you demonstrate morality? I think morality is subjective. Just because you cannot demonstrate that a moral behavior is bad doesn't make it any less bad. Rape doesn't become any less evil because some lexographer put it under the catagory of subjective morality rather than objective morality.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

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

What law are you talking about? Government laws?

Ken

 

[Cearbhall]

How are you defining Objective morality? I have always understood objective as something based upon fact; something that can be demonstrated, like math. But how do you demonstrate morality?

Objective morality basically means that you think morality is "written in the stars," so to speak, whether you think a deity or some other force makes the rules. These would be the "higher laws." Subjective morality, therefore, means that morality is constructed by humans and actions aren't actually good or bad any more than orange is factually an ugly color.

 

[Ken-1122]

Objective morality basically means that you think morality is "written in the stars," so to speak, whether you think a deity or some other force makes the rules. These would be the "higher laws." Subjective morality, therefore, means that morality is constructed by humans and actions aren't actually good or bad any more than orange is factually an ugly color.

I disagree with your definition of Subjective morality. If morality is constructed by humans thus actions weren't actually good or bad any more than orange is an ugly color, humans don't make laws about oranges being ugly; humans do make laws about morality.

I think Hitler, Amin, Stalin, and a host of other evil men in history proved that the only laws that exist are the laws that are enforced. The stars, Deities, or some imaginary higher power than humans did not stop these men from breaking moral laws.

Ken

 

[TomZzyzx]

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.

And those people who do not believe rape is bad, or imoral, are moral relativist, which is a very dangerous position to hold.

The question is, is rape imoral for everyone?

If it is imoral for everyone then rape is an example of objective morality.

 

[Cearbhall]

I disagree with your definition of Subjective morality. If morality is constructed by humans thus actions weren't actually good or bad any more than orange is an ugly color, humans don't make laws about oranges being ugly; humans do make laws about morality.

I'm not sure what you're saying here or how it contradicts what I said. I was comparing the lack of objective truth, not the importance that our culture places on these examples relative to each other.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Objective morality basically means that you think morality is "written in the stars," so to speak, whether you think a deity or some other force makes the rules. These would be the "higher laws." Subjective morality, therefore, means that morality is constructed by humans and actions aren't actually good or bad any more than orange is factually an ugly color.

Sorry but this isn't right.

Objective morality is when a moral truth (the object), like murder (the unjustified taking of a human life) is wrong, is true for everyone at all times, whether they believe it or not.

Subjective morality is when that moral truth (murder is wrong) is only wrong for the person (the subject) who believes it.

 

[Cearbhall]

Sorry but this isn't right.

Yes, it is.

Objective morality is when a moral truth (the object), like murder (the unjustified taking of a human life) is wrong, is true for everyone at all times, whether they believe it or not.

You're thinking of either moral objectivism or moral absolutism. Objective morality is a different term and is more like moral realism (link). The concepts are certainly related, but "objective morality" has more to do with the idea of a source for morality than the universality and applicability of moral truths (some more links).

Subjective morality is when that moral truth (murder is wrong) is only wrong for the person (the subject) who believes it.

This is pretty much what I said.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Yes, it is.

You're thinking of either moral objectivism or moral absolutism. Objective morality is a different term and is more like moral realism (link). The concepts are certainly related, but "objective morality" has more to do with the idea of a source for morality than the universality and applicability of moral truths (some more links).

This is pretty much what I said.

Actually in the first paragraph of the Wiki article (your first link) explains objective morality exactly as I do.

Your second link would be better discussed in a different thread.

In the article of the third link the author is just wrong about objective morality.

And right now i don't have the time to read the posts in the forum of the forth link.

 

[Hikarifuru]

How are you defining Objective morality? I have always understood objective as something based upon fact; something that can be demonstrated, like math. But how do you demonstrate morality? I think morality is subjective. Just because you cannot demonstrate that a moral behavior is bad doesn't make it any less bad. Rape doesn't become any less evil because some lexographer put it under the catagory of subjective morality rather than objective morality.

Ken

Objective means you can demonstrate it without bias.

Just because you cannot demonstrate that a moral behavior is bad doesn't make it any less bad. Rape doesn't become any less evil because some lexographer put it under the catagory of subjective morality rather than objective morality.

But there isn't a way to tell what is bad or good objectively, you're using your bias to determine those things. You can objectively demonstrate the rule you use to determine it, but that the rule you use is the right rule to be used requires your bias.

I think what hurts people and what makes people happy is right rule to use and while I can objectively show what does those things, that this rule should be used to determine it requires bias.

 

[Aldebaran]

But there isn't a way to tell what is bad or good objectively, you're using your bias to determine those things.

As living beings, that's always going to be the case. If you're talking about inanimate objects, then you could talk about objective morality as long as it doesn't involve living beings. In that case, there would be no such things as morality anymore since the idea would be meaningless.

 

[Skavau]

As living beings, that's always going to be the case. If you're talking about inanimate objects, then you could talk about objective morality as long as it doesn't involve living beings. In that case, there would be no such things as morality anymore since the idea would be meaningless.

This is like saying the notion of reviewing media is meaningless as there is no objective standard.

 

[Aldebaran]

This is like saying the notion of reviewing media is meaningless as there is no objective standard.

The standard would be set by the person doing the reviewing. Again, this involves a living being.

 

[Skavau]

The standard would be set by the person doing the reviewing. Again, this involves a living being.

Yes, but the value of all art is subjective therefore viewing any opinion on any piece of media is therefore meaningless.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, but the value of all art is subjective therefore viewing any opinion on any piece of media is therefore meaningless.

That's correct.