Is Rape just relatively wrong? Or ABSOLUTELY WRONG?

[steven84]

Mark Spence the Dean of S.O.B.E. (School Of Biblical Evangelism) encounters two atheists that were waiting for Ray Comfort and his crew to show up for some Open-Air preaching. SEE HERE:

Mark's first heckler was Bruce who ultimately concluded that morality is decided upon by "majority rule of a society." That is the very logical equation that justified Nazi Germany during the holocaust!

Frank said morality is genetic. This logical equation makes a man like Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer justified in their actions. They were dancing to the exact tune their DNA was tuned play. By Frank's logic there wasn't really anything wrong with these men...they were just unfashionable to the times. No right, no wrong just DNA and the will to live. Frank ultimately said we need to be more opened-minded to rape...the means would justify the ends according to him.

Mark unravels this faulty logic and reveals it for what it is. Moral Relativism, a view in which there in no real right or wrong...just fashions and changes. A world in which a mother Teresa and Hitler are both validly equal in the ways they lived their lives.

The only way to justify and kind of Absolute morality (which is embedded in our thinking) is to posit a Moral Law Giver which is the very God and Designer of our God Given Conscience that works as a Moral compass...convicting us and pointing us in the direction of the Savior. The Law of God is a school master that drives us to the cross!

Out of the three men in this debate who’s points were the most valid and realistic?

Is there any better way to take on a moral relativist? For instance does anyone know a quicker way to cut to the heart of the issue resolved?

Is there really a “Right� and “Wrong� in the objective/absolute sense? Or is it really just a matter of opinions?

You decide which side you fall on:

To the the Moral Absolutist...rape is an atrocity, it is the epitome of WRONG.

To the moral relativist...rape is merely a matter of preference and opinion. Hitler had his season of being the RIGHT kind of guy.

SEE MARK'S ENCOUNTER HERE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_kf3EgU6lk

[Goat]

In our culture rape is absolutely wrong. For a differing view you can look at Saudi Arabia, rape is still wrong but usually the woman is held to blame instead of the rapists. Are they wrong or are we? The answer is neither, both are correct in their own cultural context.

That is an obscene conclusion to draw. There are issues where there are shades of grey, but rape is not one of them cannot be justified on cultural grounds and to do so is simply an example of the the worst kind of moral relativism, and is just pandering to a desire to be the politically correct and culturally sensitive. We don't have to accept that another culture thinks differently to us in regards to the acceptability of an apaulling crime. We can just say they are wrong.

Actually, it is a valid point. They can equally say we are wrong. They are, of course, but that show the subjective nature of morality.

[Crazy Ivan]

That is an obscene conclusion to draw.

"Obscene" just means it doesn't make you feel good.

There are issues where there are shades of grey, but rape is not one of them cannot be justified on cultural grounds and to do so is simply an example of the the worst kind of moral relativism, and is just pandering to a desire to be the politically correct and culturally sensitive.

Again, you're just manifesting a personal reaction to rape. A perfect example how rape is only wrong in relation to how you feel about it. Nothing "absolute" about it.

We don't have to accept that another culture thinks differently to us in regards to the acceptability of an apaulling crime. We can just say they are wrong.

Sure, I do. But not because of some sense of "absolute wrong", but "relative wrong". Relative to how I feel about it. I am "correct" as to how I feel, rapists are "correct" as to how they feel. We are "incorrect" in opposition to each other. It's all relative.

[alsarg72]

Do you disagree that there have been rapes in Saudi Arabia and that it was the victim that was punished not the rapists?

Of course not. Explain to me how to read that in my reply.

I am not being morally relativistic

Yes you are.

I am being morally realistic. If you don't want to accept that other cultures have morals that differ from ours that's fine but you can not deny that they are different none the less. If you want other cultures morals to be the same as ours then you will have to alter that culture which is no easy thing.

Let me give you another example.

If you found that there was a culture where it was considered morally acceptable to rape the children after dinner every night, would you say...?

In that culture it is moral to rape children after dinner every night. In our culture it is immoral and an abhorrent crime. But it is not for us to judge them. They are culturally different and we must be morally realistic and accept their cultural differences.

If you reply yes, then you'll be consistent with what you've said above. If you reply no, then please explain the inconsistency.

[alsarg72]

Sure, I do. But not because of some sense of "absolute wrong", but "relative wrong". Relative to how I feel about it. I am "correct" as to how I feel, rapists are "correct" as to how they feel. We are "incorrect" in opposition to each other. It's all relative.

How you and the rapist feel about the crime of a woman being raped has nothing to do with the morality of the situation.

The rapist is "incorrect". What an understatement! How you "feel" as a third part is irrelevant.

If your mother was raped would you consider other peoples' opinions as to how they "feel" about it? Would you consider the rapists "feelings" about how at the time it was "correct" for him?

Your thinking is disturbing.

[alsarg72]

Actually, it is a valid point. They can equally say we are wrong. They are, of course, but that show the subjective nature of morality.

Why do you (not just goat but Wyvern and others as well) insist on making excuses for not taking an absolute stance on black and white moral issues?

If someone broke into a family's house at dinner time and blew a child's head off with a shotgun in front of it's family would you say...?

He thought he was right, I think he was wrong, but that is the subjective nature of morality and we can't make an absolute moral judgement.

Why can't you just say...?

That was a crime and it was absolutely morally wrong.

And if you did say it was absolutely wrong how does the shooter saying "No, I think you are wrong" have any relevance to the morality of what they did?

Are you unable to make an absolute moral judgement in any context because that would mean that you didn't have to defer to God and the Bible for your morality? If not, please explain why not.

[Goat]

Actually, it is a valid point. They can equally say we are wrong. They are, of course, but that show the subjective nature of morality.

Why do you insist on making excuses for not taking an absolute stance on black and white moral issues?

If someone broke into a family's house at dinner time and blew a child's head off with a shotgun in front of it's family would you say...?

He thought he was right, I think he was wrong, but that is the subjective nature of morality and we can't make an absolute moral judgement.

Why can't you just say...?

That was a crime and it was absolutely morally wrong.

And if you did say it was absolutely wrong how does the shooter saying "No, I think you are wrong" have any relevance to the morality of what they did?

Are you unable to make an absolute moral judgement in any context because that would mean that you didn't have to defer to God and the Bible for your morality? If not, please explain why not.

THe thing is.. it would be morally wrong.. TO ME. It is someone violating the social contract. Oh, these straw men you build.

I will point out what your examples have in common. We are talking harm to an individual, and subjectively, from the individuals point of view, it is wrong. From an evolutionary point of view, man has evolved as a social animal, and as such, the harming of individuals within our 'group' is considered bad. From a societal point of view, it has a right to protect the individuals that makes up society, since that is a survival feature, but it is very subjective.

[alsarg72]

Why don't you want to answer the questions?

Yes, from the individuals point of view it is wrong. No-one is arguing contrary to that.

Why are the acts I give as examples not just morally wrong? And how are they straw men other than that you can't answer them. A straw man is a bad argument set up to be knocked down. I gave examples and applied the arguments given by others to them.

Please spell out how your subjectivity is relevant and please spell out how the subjectivity of the perpetrator is relevant.

I am not saying that they are not wrong to you - I am saying that they are wrong, period - including TO YOU.

(ALL CAPS does not re-enforce an argument.)

[Goat]

Why don't you want to answer the questions?

Yes, from the individuals point of view it is wrong. No-one is arguing contrary to that.

Why are the acts I give as examples not just morally wrong? And how are they straw men other than that you can't answer them. A straw man is a bad argument set up to be knocked down. I gave examples and applied the arguments given by others to them.

Please spell out how your subjectivity is relevant and please spell out how the subjectivity of the perpetrator is relevant.

I am not saying that they are not wrong to you - I am saying that they are wrong, period - including TO YOU.

(ALL CAPS does not re-enforce an argument.)

The items you are bringing up ALWAYS involve an individual, and therefore is subjective.

[alsarg72]

The items you are bringing up ALWAYS involve an individual, and therefore is subjective.

Sorry. I didn't realize the topic of the debate was "What is subjectivity?".

Try again.

[Goat]

The items you are bringing up ALWAYS involve an individual, and therefore is subjective.

Sorry. I didn't realize the topic of the debate was "What is subjectivity?".

Try again.

Subjective is something that is relative to an individual. So, it is relatively wrong.