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

[alsarg72]

Nope, I don't get it all. But I just love that the refusal to condemn rape as immoral is in the Christianity and Apologetics forum. Very apt. You could be Pope one day!

[Crazy Ivan]

Nope, I don't get it all. But I just love that the refusal to condemn rape as immoral is in the Christianity and Apologetics forum. Very apt. You could be Pope one day!

Actually, this is the wrong sub-forum, but that's not my fault. And please stop saying I don't condemn rape as immoral, when you're perfectly aware that I do, RELATIVELY to who makes the consideration. You're being very obnoxious.

[alsarg72]

Your insistence on using RELATIVELY means you leave the door open that you would consider rape not immoral in some circumstances.

If arguing against that is obnoxious then I'm happy to oblige.

(That someone else might consider it not immoral is for me to debate with them that they are wrong.)

[Wyvern]

In reply to Wyvern...

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I never meant to say or imply that we all have the same morals - in the sense of opinion in what is moral and what is immoral. It is clearly the case that we do not. (By we I don't mean you and I - I mean us and them - ie: people who punish victims like saudi rape victims.)

I am talking about the absolute morality or otherwise of a specific act. Not about anyones opinion about it, not about the culpability of the offender, not about his or her justifications, or feelings.

When you claim there are absolute morals you are saying that those particular morals are shared by everyone all across the world regardless of culture. Each individual culture determines whether a specific act within that culture is moral or not. We in america say killing is an immoral act but don't blink an eye when someone is given the death sentence, so even inside a culture morals are not absolute.

The topic of the debate is "Is Rape just relatively wrong? Or ABSOLUTELY WRONG?". It is not "Does everyone agree that...".

The answer is obviously that rape is not absolutely wrong given the example provided by Saudi Arabia, after all if it was it the Saudi rapists would have been charged instead of the woman.

How do you feel about my specific examples? Are they wrong, or are relatively wrong? If they are relatively wrong, what does that mean to the 'specific' examples?

One of your examples would be wrong within our cultures morality while another of your examples posits a culture where raping ones own children was accepted behavior so within that culture it is not immoral but to our culture it is very immoral.

[Crazy Ivan]

If arguing against that is obnoxious then I'm happy to oblige.

You're being obnoxious because even though it has been explained to you repeatedly that I look at the matter in relative terms (as a moral relativist), you insist on classifying me in your absolute terms as "one that doesn't find rape immoral", when you should know by now this oversimplification simply does not apply to a moral relativist. This is what fundamentalists do. They do not respect that others find the issue more complicated than they do. It's all very simple when you believe in a creator god that decided for everyone else what is moral and what isn't.

[alsarg72]

Yes, but you don't explain why.

It's all very simple when you believe in a creator god that decided for everyone else what is moral and what isn't.

I am not sure if this is an attack on me because you think I'm a Christian, or a defense of your position because you're a Christian. I didn't think you were. I am atheist through and through.

you insist on classifying me in your absolute terms as "one that doesn't find rape immoral"

Because you refuse to state it. I am not a moral absolutist. There are things on which morality is very grey and worth of deep debate, and perhaps not solvable to anyone's satisfaction, and on which I am no doubt we would agree.

There are also heinous crimes which you will not condemn because you are a "moral relativist".

I want an explanation. You haven't provided one. If you are not Christian then I find your position even more interesting.

But, I've had enough of this thread. On to other things...

[alsarg72]

Wyvern, you are talking about something completely different from what I am talking about.

When you claim there are absolute morals you are saying that those particular morals are shared by everyone all across the world regardless of culture.

No, I am not saying that at all.

I am saying that something that if something is objectively wrong, then cultures where it is morally acceptable are wrong.

Whipping a woman with a bicycle chain because she left her house without a male relative is objectively, absolutely wrong, and the Taliban who practiced this act in Afganistan, (and maybe still do) are wrong to do so.

The fact that they think they are right is wrong.

That is my position.

But if you define it as immoral in your country and moral in theirs, we are using the word moral in different senses, and in the sense you are using - they have different morals - <b>I agree with you!</b>

But perhaps a moral relativist cannot comprehend the sense in which I am using the words because it is contrary to moral relativism.

So I will concede that I have been able to express myself in a way that you can understand, and we can leave it at that.

[Crazy Ivan]

First of all, sorry for calling you obnoxious.

I am not sure if this is an attack me because you think I'm a Christian, or a defense of your position because you're a Christian. I didn't think you were. I am atheist through and through.

I don't really understand atheism without moral relativism. Without an entity at the top deciding for the rest of us, morality is relative to the individual perception, or collective perception.

Because you refuse to state it.

I refuse to state it in your terms. I can easily say "I think rape is immoral". It would be true, and that works just as well regardless of whether or not I'm a moral relativist. But since the relativity IS the issue here, I rather not state it without emphasizing it's MY moral stance, but not "THE" moral stance in what regards this behavior.

I am not a moral absolutist.

Well... you are as far as "rape" is concerned.

There are things on which morality is very grey and worth of deep debate, and perhaps not solvable to anyone's satisfaction, and on which I am no doubt we would agree.

There are also heinous crimes which you will not condemn because you are a "moral relativist".

I want an explanation. You haven't provided one. If you are not Christian then I find your position even more interesting.

Likewise. I find yours VERY interesting if you're an atheist. Personally, I would need objective criteria to separate a "heinous" crime from one that isn't "heinous". But since "heinous" is just a perception, I'm confident you can't provide this criteria. So you personally decided rape is "heinous" and absolutely wrong, even though you can't objectively explain why I should feel the same way. Which I do, but that doesn't matter, because not everyone does.

-edit: Clarification... I do find it "heinous" or "wrong", not "absolutely wrong".

[alsarg72]

If I can't explain my side, and you can't explain your side, we are at an impasse. Done.

[Crazy Ivan]

If I can't explain my side, and you can't explain your side, we are at an impasse. Done.

We can ask a moderator opinion.