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]

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

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. For him it was relatively right. For me it was relatively wrong.

Why can't you just say...?

That was a crime and it was absolutely morally wrong.

So, again, contrive a way to make your subjectivity relevant in answering my questions.

Or just agree that that is what you would say.

Or alter your stance.

Or debate something simpler while you are learning.

[Goat]

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

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. For him it was relatively right. For me it was relatively wrong.

Why can't you just say...?

That was a crime and it was absolutely morally wrong.

So, again, contrive a way to make your subjectivity relevant in answering my questions.

Or just agree that that is what you would say.

Or alter your stance.

Or debate something simpler while you are learning.

I gave an answer, it just doesn't seem to me that you are willing to understand or accept my point of view.

Nor, can you do anything but bring up straw men.

[alsarg72]

You gave an answer to a question that wasn't asked, and didn't give any answers to any points I raised, and didn't adequately relate your point of view to any of the points I raised, and you need to look up what a straw man is. But all of that is completely off topic.

[Wyvern]

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 didn't I was simply verifying that you knew other cultures have different morals than ours. How can the Saudi authorities come to this conclusion then if morals are the same everywhere?

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.

Unless you are willing to go in and actively try to change their morals then yes you have no choice but to accept they have different morals than you. To give you an example of how hard it is to change morals, in the US a religious subgroup was able to force their own morality onto the entire nation by making alcohol illegal, this was called prohibition. They had god on their side or so they claimed and at the time noone was going to publicly disagree with god. Were the prohibitionists wrong or right? Obviously most americans thought they were wrong for it wasn't very long before it was repealed. Or is this just another failed example of trying to legislate morality?

[alsarg72]

What would be really cool is if someone who agrees with goat could run with his argument.

[alsarg72]

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.

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

Alcohol is far from a black and white issue. So I gave what I consider to be (more) black and white issues to use as examples to illustrate that there are things that are absolutely wrong - like rape.

So in answer to your specific example, I believe I am in complete agreement with you.

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?

[Crazy Ivan]

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

Rather, it has nothing to do with the legality.

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

In your opinion. It is noted. You don't have to reiterate ad nauseam. Notice the rapist can feel he is doing something wrong, and think of himself as imoral. Then we would both be correct as to the perception of morality, but he would still be doing something illegal. I don't see what's complicated about this.

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.

Not at all. Do you know what an appeal to emotion is? Do you expect me to base my opinion on logical fallacies?

-edit: But notice especially that you say "how you "feel" as a third part is irrelevant", and then ask me "what if it was your mother?"...

[alsarg72]

Legality is a separate issue altogether.

I made the example more personal to illustrate that your opinion is disturbing because you have no empathy for the victim. And also because you are using "feelings" as your justification, and you should apply that equally to an example in which your "feelings" matter more. You can't use "feelings" freely in your discussion and then rename it "emotions" so that you can turn it around as an "appeal to emotion".

On the other hand I am not interested in how you "feel" - you miss the point, seemly deliberately, and you neglect to answer the salient point, because of your use of "feelings" to justify your not wanting to state unequivocally that rape is immoral.

I don't understand why you continue to resist saying that rape is immoral. Why you wouldn't just say, "Yes, your examples show objectively moral acts."

My saying that the thinking of someone who doesn't want to say that rape is immoral is disturbing is not an argument. That is purely my opinion.

[Crazy Ivan]

Legality is a separate issue altogether.

Yes, they tend to get mixed up.

I made the example more personal to illustrate that your opinion is disturbing because you have no empathy for the victim.

I most certainly do. I'm just being objective. My empathy is irrelevant as far as the collective "morality" is concerned. It's only relevant to me and the object, be it the victim or the rapist. It's relative to those relationships... "me-victim", "me-rapist", "rapist-victim", etc...

And also because you are using "feelings" as your justification, and you should apply that equally to an example in which your "feelings" matter more. You can't use "feelings" freely in your discussion and then rename it "emotions" so that you can turn it around as an "appeal to emotion".

It's hardly the same. I'm not using "feelings" as an argument, I'm establishing them as an inherent part of the concept of "morality", from my perspective, which is different from yours.

On the other hand I am not interested in how you "feel" - you miss the point, seemly deliberately

Pump those breaks...

and you neglect to answer the salient point, because of your use of "feelings" to justify your not wanting to state unequivocally that rape is immoral.

I don't understand why you continue to resist saying that rape is immoral. Why you wouldn't just say, "Yes, your examples show objectively moral acts."

Can't help you there, buddy. If you don't get it, you don't get it. You have a hard time agreeing to disagree? I don't.

My saying that the thinking of someone who doesn't want to say that rape is immoral is disturbing is not an argument. That is purely my opinion.

It's relatively immoral. As far as I'm concerned, your opinion presupposes a false dichotomy, when in fact more relationships should be considered, in what is a complex matter.

[Abraxas]

Whether we want to say it or not is really irrelevant, the questions are why we want to and whether we have good reason to. I don't think there is anyone here, and they can of course correct me if I am mistaken, who doesn't want the things we find most heinous, of them rape is a common enough example, are wrong, that they are immoral, that they are evil. I believe we would all like such an act to be an affront to the universe itself, an infringement of an absolute truth as to what is and is not acceptable.

Why? Well, I expect we live in societies with a certain amount of modernization, as evidenced by the fact you are reading this online. From birth, the attitudes of not only our parents and caregivers have been engrained in us, but the attitudes, customs, and values of our society. We are taught the rules and taught we must obey them, and, the reasons for those rules, we are taught, are right and wrong. Morality is and has been used as the anchor for social conduct. Why we want to say something is right or wrong is obvious, we have been taught to want that our entire lives.

Do we have good reason to? Certainly from a utility standpoint, some things simply make societies function with less chaos, less suffering, more freedom and so forth. I hesistate to say "better" because that too would be a value judgment. However, from an absolute moral standpoint, what judgements can I make? I have no special access to the hidden moral truths of the universe, I have no instruction manual that will tell me if I have my morality right or not, I have no knowledge that any objective moral truths exist to begin with. I might have what I consider good reason, the utility, to say something is objectively wrong, but not among the good reasons to say so is that I believe it. I have no knowledge of objective morality and so any claims I make to it would be to an end other stating fact but instead creating a desired outcome.

So, do I want to say it is wrong? Absolutely. Why? Because I was taught to. Do I have good reason to? Not if by "good reason" you mean stating objective moral truths.

On a related note, I also find the exploitation of rape as the catch all example for these kinds of moral debates, by trying to appeal to and use the emotion of the trauma as a baseline for linking our deep seated revulsion to moral objectivity to be extremely distasteful. I also find just posting links to Ray Comfort videos and then bailing on the thread before it even starts to be distasteful.