Is Rape just relatively wrong? Or ABSOLUTELY WRONG?

[jasoncran]

no. that is up to the person ,so long as it's not porn! porn aint art!

 

[logical bob]

OK, thanks. So if I tell you that Damien Hirst's The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living

(it's a dead shark in a tank of formaldehyde)

is the last word is sculpture and puts Michaelangelo to shame then, by your own argument, you couldn't disagree, right? Because to disagree, you'd need an objective standard and you just said that there isn't one.

Clearly you can and do make that judgement, even without an objective standard. So how are morals different?

 

[Kevin Lowery]

You still don't see how one can make a moral judgement without an objective standard. OK, let me ask you guys a question. Every day we all make value judgements. We know what music we like, we know what activities we find fulfilling, we know what flavour of ice cream tastes best and we argue about the best baseball player of all time. Does this mean that there is some absolute truth about music, activities, ice cream and sport? If I like vanilla and you like tutti frutti, if I like jazz and you think it's just tootling, does one of have to be absolutely, objectively wrong? I don't imagine you'd say so.

If you can make all these other value judements and understand that they're subjective, based on your own views, wishes and preferences, why not the same with the value judgement of how best to live your life? What's so special about that one that means you have to have an absolute standard?

Your argument is not sound, because what you are talking about is personal opinions & tastes.
Yes, there is no objective or absolute answer to who is the best baseball player, witch is better vanilla or chocolate, etc. But morality does not claim to be a personal opinion, but something absolute, that's why we put forth laws. If morality is not absolute, but subjective, than morality is nothing but personal opinions & tastes, witch would mean that neither do we or anyone have the right to tell anyone what they do is wrong. If morality is just based upon personal preference like the choice between chocolate or vanilla, than the U.N was unjust for charging the Nazis with a "Crime Against Humanity" because it's just the U.N's opinion against Nazi Germany's opinion, it's not that the Nazi's actually did anything wrong, but that their opinion of what's right was just different than others. If morality is just based upon opinion & personal tastes, than you can only disagree with something, but you can't ever say that something is truly wrong, because if something is actually wrong, than there has to be an objective absolute standard to judge wrong & right by, and if wrong & right is subjective than there is no standard, and there simply is not such thing as REAL wrong or right, but just what YOU feel is "wrong" or "right", & therefore it is unjust for you to condemn someone just because they disagree with your opinion of morality. And I'm pretty sure that you would admit that somethings are absolutely wrong, because if you say that morality is subjective, than by your own admission you are truly saying that actions such as murder, theft, rape, genocide, & lying are not actually wrong, and are just things you personally disagree with.

 

[Mike]

Also, on subject but also kinda off subject, you mentioned Ray Comfort & kirk Carmon.
I support both of those guys & their ministry, and they do a decently good job at what they do,
But I sometimes cringe at that thought of them debating atheists, I've seen them debate & argue with atheists, and neither is Ray Comfort or kirk Carmon really equip with enough Apologetic knowledge to crush an Atheist debater, they are simply lacking when compared to Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Frank Turek, Dr. Norman L. Geisler, etc. It's not because they don't have a Phd, but it simply because their arguments are not as sound or put forth as good as they should be. When Ray Comfort & kirk Carmon debate with Atheist, their arguments don't seem intellectual at all, but rather good arguments said wrong or presented very dumbed down.

I could not agree more. Leave the debating to those who have the skill set. Desuza and Lane are both very good. Comfort and Cameron? They are really over-reaching. I watched a debate where they guaranteed to prove God's existence (as if someone could prove it either way) and I had to cover my eyes. It was a train wreck.

Most Christian/atheist debates spend substantial time on absolute morality.

 

[Hawkins]

Raping is a serious sin.

First the Jews were not necessarily better than their surrounding enemies, that is, before receiving the Mosaic Law. Only after the receiving of the Mosaic Law and settling in Canaan they gradually became the upholders of God's Law and Commandments.

Rigth before that they are slaves of the Egyptians. It means that their master Egyptians had the right to own/rape their women. And it should be a family's own responsibility to guard their daughters/women from being seen by others especially the Egyptians.

Moreover, slaves don't obey laws, they obey masters. If the Egyptians can rape their women at will, it's no point to kill the Jews who rape a failed to be covered women. And even when the Jews wanted to punish the rapers, they need to involvement of the master Egyptians because the rapers are properties of the Egyptians, you can't simply kill/punish the Egyptians' properties. So the being raped may have to be in front of the Egyptians risking/inviting for a second raping from the Egyptians?!

They can't punish the criminals because their fellow Jews are properties of the Egyptians, the Jews don't have the right to punish anyone belonging to the master Egyptians. So the best they can do is to hide their women the best they can. And in case a raping occurs, it will settled between the two families by the compensation of gold or by taking the responsibility of taking the women as wife.

Enslaving is a human establishment. Yet through which people/Jews know that it's bad thing to be slaves. It's bad thing for the Jews to be slaves of the Egyptians, and Moses led them out, to the promised land of Canaan. It's a bad thing for humans to be slaves of the devil, and Jesus will lead them out, to the promised land of the New Heaven and New Earth.

 

[logical bob]

But morality does not claim to be a personal opinion, but something absolute, that's why we put forth laws.

A law isn't an absolute statement. Laws are made by men and changed by men. A law says that if you do certain things there will be certain consequences.

We can make moral judgements in the absence of an absolute standard in just the same way as we make aesthetic ones. We do it all the time. To use your example, I yield to nobody in my condemnation of the Nazis. It's something I feel very strongly about - I hate racism in all its forms. But I do realise that it's me that hates it. The universe doesn't hate it, it isn't some kind of law of nature that it's bad.

Moral choices are very important - to a large extent they define who we are as people. Please don't think I'm dismissing ethics as unimportant. We should act on our beliefs rather than ignore them because they're beliefs rather than facts.

Another example - you'll do anything to be with the person you love. You're certain they're the one person in the world that's right for you. Do you stop to think "is she REALLY the best girl in the world? What if that's just a question of personal opinion and taste?" Of course you don't. You know your love is real even though it's subjective. Same thing with morals.

1 edit for a slight rewording.

 

[adam332]

According to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 the proper punishment for rape is to pay the woman's father then marry the woman you raped and not be able to divorce her ever.

Man that is harsh, you have to marry her? That punishment surely isn't fitting of the crime... poor guy.

 

[jasoncran]

happyjoy is no longer allowed post on this forum.

and using your logic, bob, please tell me what being(since you have no belief in the supernatural determines what is right and wrong)

 

[logical bob]

and using your logic, bob, please tell me what being(since you have no belief in the supernatural determines what is right and wrong)

In my opinion, no being determines it. There is no absolute right or wrong just as we agree there is no absolute beauty or ugliness.

But that's just my opinion, and I've had it heavily criticised on philosophy forums by non-Christians. I think I'm right and many people agree with me, but I don't want you to think my view (which in philosophy is called emotivism) is the only alternative to absolute religious morlality.

So, for anyone who's interested, here's a quick run through some non-absolute moral systems. I'm not defending these, I'm justing saying that they're out there.

Social contract.
We all agree to behave in certain ways so that we can live together as a society. We agree not to kill each other, steal or break promises because these things make civil society impossible. We agree to help those who need help because one day it might be us. Because everyone in society is subject to the contract, punishment is justified to encourage people to honour it. This is non-absolutist because there is no actual contract, it's a useful fiction.

Evolutionary ethics.
Those who can co-operate in large numbers have survived better than those who couldn't. Moral behaviour is that which allows that co-operation. Evolution has provided us with instincts that promote moral behaviour. This is non-absolutist because it's based on the way we are, not any outside factors.

Utilitrianism
... or the greatest good of the greatest number. John Stuart Mill argued that what we all want is pleasure and the avoidance of pain, so if we want to get the best results we should act to produce as much pleasure as possible and as little pain as we can. Non-absolutist because it says that moral behaviour is what we want if we think it through properly.

Enlightened self-interest
You covet your neighbours ox, but if you hit him over the head and take it the chances are that someone else will hit you over the head and take it from you. In the long run your best bet is to treat other people as you'd like them to treat you.

Aristotle...
... said that you can tell that the purpose of a knife if to cut things because its form makes it uniquely suited to that. In the same way, he said, you can tell that the purpose of makind is to be rational as we are the unique rational species. So we should live in a way that promotes rationality.

Virtue ethics
The right thing to do is the thing that makes you a better person. If you do good things you will yourself be happier. Virtue is its own reward.

And there are many more. I just want to show that the idea that morality doesn't come from God isn't straight out of left field. It's mainstream and it's been around for centuries in many different forms.

 

[stranger]

logical bob wrote:

In my opinion, no being determines it. There is no absolute right or wrong just as we agree there is no absolute beauty or ugliness.

But that's just my opinion, and I've had it heavily criticised on philosophy forums by non-Christians. I think I'm right and many people agree with me, but I don't want you to think my view (which in philosophy is called emotivism) is the only alternative to absolute religious morlality.

So, for anyone who's interested, here's a quick run through some non-absolute moral systems. I'm not defending these, I'm justing saying that they're out there.

hi,

So your thinking you are 'right' ('I think I'm right ..') implies that others are wrong - how does this differ from believing something is true or false?

 

[logical bob]

Hi stranger. What I meant there was that I think I'm correct in my philosophical view that moral judgements are subjective and express the emotions of the person making them. So in that sense I think my view is true and that people who disagree with me are wrong.

I believe many things are either true or false, but I don't think value judgements are among them.

You'll probably catch me saying things like "murder is wrong" and "Bon Jovi are terrible." Everyday language is imprecise for the sake of convenience. What I mean when I say those things is that it is my judgement that murder is wrong and Bon Jovi are terrible.

 

[jasoncran]

heres the thing, what to stop's evil if there a worldwide CONSENUS to kill all silly persons that is hated, and those silly persons are in the minority? and have no means to fend for themselves

the consesus has said that its morally obligated by the moral majority,as they voted on this. and the silly persons werent able to vote.

 

[logical bob]

Sadly, history has shown that can happen. I say it would be wrong. There are some things I would still say were wrong even if every other person in the world thought they were OK. Follow your conscience. Consensus means nothing.

 

[jasoncran]

Sadly, history has shown that can happen. I say it would be wrong. There are some things I would still say were wrong even if every other person in the world thought they were OK. Follow your conscience. Consensus means nothing.

bob thats the point,

men by nature cant be good all the time, we have our shining moments and . i have a coworker who puts me to shame on helping others but sadly she is an agnostic. double shame on me.

but that isnt enough for this case as we all know that it takes courage for some group or persons to stand to things like these.

and when we teach you can do what is right in your own eyes, who shall have the fortitude to say no! it isnt easy to admit err and take on evil.

 

[stranger]

logical bob

Hi stranger. What I meant there was that I think I'm correct in my philosophical view that moral judgements are subjective and express the emotions of the person making them. So in that sense I think my view is true and that people who disagree with me are wrong.

In saying your philosophical views that moral judgments are subjective and emotional is true and those who disagree with you are wrong - you are still making a value judgment.

I believe many things are either true or false, but I don't think value judgements are among them.

When you say you believe that things are either true or false - how can that not be a 'value judgment' ?

You'll probably catch me saying things like "murder is wrong" and "Bon Jovi are terrible." Everyday language is imprecise for the sake of convenience. What I mean when I say those things is that it is my judgement that murder is wrong and Bon Jovi are terrible.

In quick responses to posts language can be imprecise. Feel free to reword sentences to clarify your position. I do that to formulate propositions. This is what dialogue is all about.

take care

 

[Hawkins]

Raping as well as adultery is undoubtedly a sin.

 

[logical bob]

In saying your philosophical views that moral judgments are subjective and emotional is true and those who disagree with you are wrong - you are still making a value judgment.

No, I'm making a judgement about the validity of philosophical arguments. It's an objective question.

When you say you believe that things are either true or false - how can that not be a 'value judgment' ?

It's true that there's a tree outside my window and false that there's a goat in my kitchen. These are facts, not values.

I can see where you're coming from though. I'm planning a new thread looking at absolute truth in general, not just in ethics. Look out for it.

and when we teach you can do what is right in your own eyes, who shall have the fortitude to say no! it isnt easy to admit err and take on evil.

Jason, I'm emphatically not saying that you can do what's right in your own eyes. I judge that murder is wrong, and if someone commits murder in the belief that they're right to do so I'll still judge them to be wrong. I said "follow your conscience" to mean that morality isn't a matter of consensus. Again, that's my judgement.

 

[Hawkins]

As long as 'it hurts', then it is 'wrong'. This is the basis. To go further, 'it hurts' and 'it potentially hurts' then 'it could be wrong'. Yet 'potentially' can hardly be measured accurately. And that depends on whether you want absolute fairness. 'Absolute' is not something humans can achieve. So if 'absolute' standard is wanted, only God can set Law to define the details then judge.

Besides this, I think that one can believe in whatever ways as how morality is originated from, genes, social interaction and etc. The bottomline is, no one knows the truth for sure. Christians believe that God puts His Law to our hearts and souls. To me, the Christian faith on this is very much believable because it is not that its origin that is amazing, it is how it is synchronized in the world which is amazing.

Regarding to OT...

First the Jews were not necessarily better than their surrounding enemies, that is, before receiving the Mosaic Law. Only after the receiving of the Mosaic Law and settling in Canaan they gradually became the upholders of God's Law and Commandments.

Rigth before that they are slaves of the Egyptians. It means that their master Egyptians had the right to own/rape their women. And it should be a family's own responsibility to guard their daughters/women from being seen by others especially the Egyptians.

Moreover, slaves don't obey laws, they obey masters. If the Egyptians can rape their women at will, it's no point to kill the Jews who rape a failed to be covered women. And even when the Jews wanted to punish the rapers, they need to involvement of the master Egyptians because the rapers are properties of the Egyptians, you can't simply kill/punish the Egyptians' properties. So the being raped may have to be in front of the Egyptians risking/inviting for a second raping from the Egyptians?!

They can't punish the criminals because their fellow Jews are properties of the Egyptians, the Jews don't have the right to punish anyone belonging to the master Egyptians. So the best they can do is to hide their women the best they can. And in case a raping occurs, it will settled between the two families by the compensation of gold or by taking the responsibility of taking the women as wife.

Enslaving is a human establishment. Yet through which people/Jews know that it's bad thing to be slaves. It's bad thing for the Jews to be slaves of the Egyptians, and Moses led them out, to the promised land of Canaan. It's a bad thing for humans to be slaves of the devil, and Jesus will lead them out, to the promised land of the New Heaven and New Earth.

 

[jasoncran]

In saying your philosophical views that moral judgments are subjective and emotional is true and those who disagree with you are wrong - you are still making a value judgment.

No, I'm making a judgement about the validity of philosophical arguments. It's an objective question.

When you say you believe that things are either true or false - how can that not be a 'value judgment' ?

It's true that there's a tree outside my window and false that there's a goat in my kitchen. These are facts, not values.

I can see where you're coming from though. I'm planning a new thread looking at absolute truth in general, not just in ethics. Look out for it.

and when we teach you can do what is right in your own eyes, who shall have the fortitude to say no! it isnt easy to admit err and take on evil.

Jason, I'm emphatically not saying that you can do what's right in your own eyes. I judge that murder is wrong, and if someone commits murder in the belief that they're right to do so I'll still judge them to be wrong. I said "follow your conscience" to mean that morality isn't a matter of consensus. Again, that's my judgement.

someone had to arbitraily decide murder was wrong, who in your opinion agianst gets to decide what is right or wrong? if there' no set standard from God, then who or what is the new standard

 

[logical bob]

Jason, I apologise if I'm failing to explain myself properly. I have been trying to explain from the beginning that there is no absolute standard from God or from any other source. The judgement that murder is wrong is made individually by every person who holds that view.

You have agreed with me that there is no absolute standard of beauty or art. This doesn't stop you from making judgements about what is beautiful. In the same way, you don't need an absolute standard of morality to make judgements of right and wrong.

I'm sorry I'm not getting through to you. I'm running out of ways to say it.