Is Rape just relatively wrong? Or ABSOLUTELY WRONG?

[jasoncran]

What's the point of the Bundy quote? You make it sound like anyone who doesn't believe in objective moral values is likely to be a serial killer. Me and thousands of other people disprove that.

What keeps us from killing people for fun? Do you think that acting like Bundy would be fun? Do you want to kill people but deny that urge because you believe in objective moral values? Of course you don't. Like me, you're outraged and disgusted by Bundy and people like him. If you could do what he did and be sure to go unpunished you'd still choose not to. If you lost your faith tomorrow you'd never for a moment consider rape or murder.

Whatever keeps us from crossing that line, it isn't objective moal values.

history seems to say otherwise. you yourself admit that.

after with your thinking murder is only evil, if you say it is.

 

[logical bob]

History contains just as much evil done by those who thought they possessed absolute truth. And yes, evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[jasoncran]

History contains just as much evil done by those who thought they possessed absolute truth. And yes, evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

so. if all the country of brittian made it legal to kill all muslims by vote. that would make it moral?

what those (christians) did was wrong, if they really read the bible murder saved in defense of self and others is wrong.

sorry , bob, i dont buy that, as well i know your response, i say it would be wrong.

so your're the absolute now on what murder is in england? when they voted that it was legal to kill alll muslims?

 

[Free]

What's the point of the Bundy quote? You make it sound like anyone who doesn't believe in objective moral values is likely to be a serial killer. Me and thousands of other people disprove that.

What keeps us from killing people for fun? Do you think that acting like Bundy would be fun? Do you want to kill people but deny that urge because you believe in objective moral values? Of course you don't. Like me, you're outraged and disgusted by Bundy and people like him. If you could do what he did and be sure to go unpunished you'd still choose not to. If you lost your faith tomorrow you'd never for a moment consider rape or murder.

Whatever keeps us from crossing that line, it isn't objective moral values.

I think the point is just that: that most people should be "outraged and disgusted by Bundy and people like him." What we consider as the expected response of a rational person is exactly why morality is objective, and objective moral law only makes sense if there is a Law Giver.

The quote from Bundy is exactly what one should expect from someone who does not believe in objective morality--his actions with disregard for anyone else are just a logical outcome. This does not mean at all that anyone who believes in subjective morality will be a murderer but it does mean that such persons really should be doing whatever they want. However, no one does, nor can, live as though morals are subjective; everyone lives as though they are objective.

Bundy was right: if morality is subjective, than any judgment based on morality is utterly meaningless.

 

[Danus]

What's the point of the Bundy quote?

Well, the point was to illustrate how Bundy viewed values or morality. Those are his words and they take moral relativism to it's exact end.

Bundy clearly did not believe in objective absolutes. he says so. But, what's more is that he was firmly committed to relative morality. Again, he says so.

What keeps us from killing people for fun?

When you say "us" whom are you referring? I can't speak for us, only me. So, here is my answer. What keeps me from killing other people for FUN is ...#1 it does not seem fun to me. I think I could do it if I where really angry at someone I guess, but then that brings me to what should be #1 in my answer, so, #2 God says it's wrong. It's morally wrong.

I placed that at #2 for a reason that you might not understand, but here it is; First let me preference it with a question: How am I different from Ted Bundy by nature? Answer....no different. That also applies to you and anyone else again....by our very nature.

However, I am different by what I believe in regard to values and morality. I get mine from God and Ted got his from himself.

Do you think that acting like Bundy would be fun? Do you want to kill people but deny that urge because you believe in objective moral values?

Where do you get these questions from Bob? My God man! I never said, or indicated such a thing. However, do I deny "urges" because of my belief in Objective morality? YES, but that does not make me perfect, sinless, or always right in my actions. So, there are times when I sin. There are times when I miss the mark of God morality. I don't rape and kill women, or have that urge, but that is not the point. Let me make something clear about Christianity and our beliefs when it comes to morality. You can't live the Christian life! There are no Good Christians. That does not change Gods law of morality. It exist on it's own whether you or I believe it does or not. Otherwise it would not be absolute. It stand alone....the question is...DO we choose it or not? If we don't there has to be an alternative and that alternative is only of our own. Ted chose his own. In his case that included raping and killing women for fun. He clearly explains himself.

Whatever keeps us from crossing that line, it isn't objective moral values.

Again with the "us". I explained me. I'll have to guess at those who believe like you, and I'm sorry to say, that will have to include Ted Bundy. Not saying you are a serial killer. I don't know, but you indicate your not. However, you and Bundy believe the same thing when it comes to the source of your values and morality. You do and there is not argument there. We have what you've said and we have what Ted said and they match up to the point where Ted says he likes to rape and kill. Other than that, you both state pretty much the same thing. You believe that morals are personal judgment calls and so does Ted.

So, what keeps you from crossing that line? Well I don't know. Maybe you just don't fancy killing? Maybe your afraid to go against the populous? Let's face it, your still governed mostly by law that comes from Judeo-Christian values,which come from God. My guess is that, unlike Ted, your too afraid to go up against that in any real way, but you may also value some of it. I don't know. In any case you either borrow from the truth and make the rest up or your just not really committed to what you believe and so you don't cross that line.

One thing your not going to be able to do in this argument and stand right by what you say you believe is answer back that killing is wrong. If you do, you've jut blown your argument away with an absolute statement. In which case Objective Morality WINS! So, unless you have a magical answer, I do believe this is ........check mate.

 

[Danus]

What's the point of the Bundy quote? You make it sound like anyone who doesn't believe in objective moral values is likely to be a serial killer. Me and thousands of other people disprove that.

What keeps us from killing people for fun? Do you think that acting like Bundy would be fun? Do you want to kill people but deny that urge because you believe in objective moral values? Of course you don't. Like me, you're outraged and disgusted by Bundy and people like him. If you could do what he did and be sure to go unpunished you'd still choose not to. If you lost your faith tomorrow you'd never for a moment consider rape or murder.

Whatever keeps us from crossing that line, it isn't objective moral values.

Bundy was right: if morality is subjective, than any judgment based on morality is utterly meaningless.

True,. Bundy was absolutely correct in that statement, as well as his logic of his belief. Bundy was a true atheist...A giant in that regard was he not?

 

[logical bob]

Are we different to Bundy by nature? I presume you mean that in a theological, Fall sort of way, in which case the answer is no, we share Bundy's human condition. But an important difference is that Bundy was a sociopath. As he said himself: "I didn't know what made things tick. I didn't know what made people want to be friends. I didn't know what made people attractive to one another. I didn't know what underlay social interactions." Through my job I've had dealings with a few people with sociopathic personality disorders, though nobody in Bundy's league, and they are wired up in a fundamentally different way to the rest of us. The inability to see that others are people in the same way they are gives them a totally different frame of reference. Is it any wonder their choices are different?

Also, Bundy committed his crimes in the depressive phase of a bipolar illness. Was he really acting rationally in taking his beliefs to their logical conclusion?

What stands out in the quote you originally posted is the importance to Bundy of immediate personal gratification. We tend to see this as shallow and childlike. There's no superiority to the person who gorges on chocolate cake in the afternoon rather than waiting for dinner with fine wine and good company.

I think the greatest pleasures in life come from loving and being loved. That's not an option for a disordered mind like Bundy's. The sociopath seeks to dominate the world because he can't understand it. He is different by nature and that nature excludes him. I disagree with your idea that moral relativists who don't act like Bundy are doing things by halfs. A giant among atheists? Ultimately he should be pitied as much as anything.

 

[jasoncran]

hitler loved and was loved by hisgirlfriend.

 

[Danus]

Are we different to Bundy by nature? I presume you mean that in a theological, Fall sort of way, in which case the answer is no, we share Bundy's human condition. But an important difference is that Bundy was a sociopath. As he said himself: "I didn't know what made things tick. I didn't know what made people want to be friends. I didn't know what made people attractive to one another. I didn't know what underlay social interactions." Through my job I've had dealings with a few people with sociopathic personality disorders, though nobody in Bundy's league, and they are wired up in a fundamentally different way to the rest of us. The inability to see that others are people in the same way they are gives them a totally different frame of reference. Is it any wonder their choices are different?

Also, Bundy committed his crimes in the depressive phase of a bipolar illness. Was he really acting rationally in taking his beliefs to their logical conclusion?

What stands out in the quote you originally posted is the importance to Bundy of immediate personal gratification. We tend to see this as shallow and childlike. There's no superiority to the person who gorges on chocolate cake in the afternoon rather than waiting for dinner with fine wine and good company.

I think the greatest pleasures in life come from loving and being loved. That's not an option for a disordered mind like Bundy's. The sociopath seeks to dominate the world because he can't understand it. He is different by nature and that nature excludes him. I disagree with your idea that moral relativists who don't act like Bundy are doing things by halfs. A giant among atheists? Ultimately he should be pitied as much as anything.

Let’s not forget the subject of this thread; Morality; absolute or relative.

You can say what you want about Ted Bundy’s mental state. The fact is, most sociopaths and people with bipolar do not commit murder or rape, and it’s also a fact that some people who can not be clearly labeled as such have.

A person with genetic conditions, or mental illness, or various degrees of nurturing when young, does not specifically predispose them to relevant moral judgments when it comes to their moral actions or views. If that’s true of the most depraved nurturing and mental conditions it’s also true of the most idea. And it is.

Ted Bundy claimed to hold relative views of morality…regardless. If you want to say it was because of his flawed mental state then one could argue that people who hold relative views are sociopaths or they suffer from some condition, but you’re not willing to go there. Instead you invoke some measure now of sympathy for this man in saying now that he should be pitied….? In a way the relative view of morality should not condemn Ted at all. He’s just doing what comes natural to him. Poor little guy.

You can’t have it both ways. Either you have a standard or you don’t. If you have a standard then it’s either of you, or a group. If it’s of a group you can’t call it absolute because another group or individual might have different views and you would be going against your belief if you said they where wrong.

Relative morality is a conundrum that leaves only one answer and that’s absolute morality unless you are willing to let people like Ted Bundy live among your group.


So which s it?

 

[logical bob]

Ted Bundy claimed to hold relative views of morality…regardless. If you want to say it was because of his flawed mental state then one could argue that people who hold relative views are sociopaths or they suffer from some condition, but you’re not willing to go there.

Nobody could be identified as having a mental disorder because of an opinion they hold. You seem to be suggesting that moral relativism is bad because Bundy took that view and was also a murderer. That's as basesless as saying Wagner's music is bad because Hitler liked it. If Bundy voted, would that reflect poorly on his chosen party? Of course not.

Instead you invoke some measure now of sympathy for this man in saying now that he should be pitied….? In a way the relative view of morality should not condemn Ted at all. He’s just doing what comes natural to him. Poor little guy.

Of course I condemn Bundy, and I don't feel much sympathy for him. But you were suggesting he should be some kind of role model for moral relativists and that's ridiculous.

You can’t have it both ways. Either you have a standard or you don’t. If you have a standard then it’s either of you, or a group. If it’s of a group you can’t call it absolute because another group or individual might have different views and you would be going against your belief if you said they where wrong.

I don't fully understand these sentences, but I'm not going against my belief if I say someone else is wrong. If you express a view I disagree with I'm being perfectly consistent in saying you're wrong in my judgement. I don't need an objective standard of morals for this any more than I need an objective standard of beauty to choose which painting I want on my wall.

Relative morality is a conundrum that leaves only one answer and that’s absolute morality unless you are willing to let people like Ted Bundy live among your group.

Why would you want to let someone like Bundy live among your group? That would be a totally bad idea.

So which s it?

Sorry, I had trouble making out your post. What's the question?

Oh, and happy Fourth of July to any Americans reading this thread.

 

[Danus]

Nobody could be identified as having a mental disorder because of an opinion they hold. You seem to be suggesting that moral relativism is bad because Bundy took that view and was also a murderer. That's as basesless as saying Wagner's music is bad because Hitler liked it. If Bundy voted, would that reflect poorly on his chosen party? Of course not.

Auuggg....BOB...Your making my point buddy. I said; "one could make an argument of it....but that would be silly wouldn't it? Your the one who brought up his mental state. It's irrelevant to the subject.

Of course I condemn Bundy, and I don't feel much sympathy for him. But you were suggesting he should be some kind of role model for moral relativists and that's ridiculous.

He is a role model for moral relativist. Let me be clear...I'm not suggesting it...I'm saying it.

I don't fully understand these sentences, but I'm not going against my belief if I say someone else is wrong. If you express a view I disagree with I'm being perfectly consistent in saying you're wrong in my judgement. I don't need an objective standard of morals for this any more than I need an objective standard of beauty to choose which painting I want on my wall.

Morality and art are not the same. They could be viewed as such in regards to absolute of relative, but lets face it, art is completely relative. Not a good example when we are speaking of God's morality and Christianity. Works well for Atheist, but not for Christians. What I'm saying is, if you say that killing is wrong and I say killing is wrong, we may agree that it is wrong, but we would not agree on the standard. So, using your example of art, I may agree a painting is beautiful ans you may also agree, but we are using similar standards. Remember...the discussion whether or not morality is absolute or relative. So if you say some moral judgment is right or wrong, but you hold a relative view of morality, that does not hold much weight to what you say is right or wrong since it's just your opinion. If the standard is God, based on what we know to be God's word as written, and we say it's absolute then we have a hard standard. No man keeps that standard by the way. Only one did, and that was Christ who was God. When you compare the two 'logically" Relative morality runs into a huge problem. It crosses itself out.

The bible is often referd to as the first book of law, not just for the rules written, but more so for the standard to which those rules where written. However, the standard is God. Man is below God...man is fallen, So when you pick out the rules written in Deuteronomy or Leviticus, you are looking at rules for fallen man, if man where anywhere near God in terms of morality, many of those rules and laws would not seem so atrocious.

Sorry, I had trouble making out your post. What's the question?

Oh, and happy Fourth of July to any Americans reading this thread.

No real question, just one for thought.
Thanks for the nod to our Holiday. The older I get the more I wonder what this country means anymore. Some of us like to think it's a an absolute Christian nation and we've painted it as such, but in the end I guess we'll just keep having to fight for what ever it is the majority defines as "relative" freedom.

 

[logical bob]

Auuggg....BOB...Your making my point buddy. I said; "one could make an argument of it....but that would be silly wouldn't it? Your the one who brought up his mental state. It's irrelevant to the subject.

You didn't say it would be silly, you said I wasn't willing to go there.

If you read back you'll see I brought up Bundy's mental state for two reasons. Firstly, you said he was no dfferent from us in his nature, and while that might be true theologically, there are important respects in which sociopaths are different. Secondly, you and others had suggested his crimes were the rational conclusion of relativism. As he committed each of them at a particular stage of a mental illness I was questioning how rational they really were.

He is a role model for moral relativist. Let me be clear...I'm not suggesting it...I'm saying it.

Fortunately, being a relativist, I don't have to accept your absolute idea of who should be a role model.

Morality and art are not the same... art is completely relative... if you say some moral judgment is right or wrong, but you hold a relative view of morality, that does not hold much weight to what you say is right or wrong since it's just your opinion.

So you're saying that we don't expect certainty in artistic judgements but that we do expect moral certainty?

The bible is often referd to as the first book of law

Often, but wrongly. The Code of Hammurabi predates even the existence of the Hebrew language by centuries. There are also Egyptian writings on law and ethics which are much older than the Bible.

However, the standard is God. Man is below God...man is fallen, So when you pick out the rules written in Deuteronomy or Leviticus, you are looking at rules for fallen man

So the Deuteronomy and Leviticus are for a particular situation rather than being universally true? Perhaps you're getting the hang of this relativism thing after all!

if man where anywhere near God in terms of morality, many of those rules and laws would not seem so atrocious.

So if we were more Godlike, the systematic execution of captive children wouldn’t bother us so much? That’s not much of an advert for being transformed by faith.

 

[jasoncran]

please bob. what then stops men without a moral standard doing evil.

if the entire U>S. says killing and the raping of women is legal, and its voted in. who is to say that is wrong
and why? for what standard is the killing and the raping of woman is wrong, if no one or entity says that is always wrong.

 

[logical bob]

please bob. what then stops men without a moral standard doing evil.

Nothing stops anyone from doing anything. However depraved an act is, chances are someone's done it at some time.

if the entire U>S. says killing and the raping of women is legal, and its voted in. who is to say that is wrong and why?

Anyone who disagrees can say it's wrong. I'd be first in the queue.

for what standard is the killing and the raping of woman is wrong, if no one or entity says that is always wrong

Why can't you have confidence in your own judgement? If you think it's wrong, why can't you just say it's wrong? Why do you need the security blanket of an absolute standard?

I'd also like to point out again that if the Bible is your standard then you can't say that killing is always wrong.

 

[Free]

for what standard is the killing and the raping of woman is wrong, if no one or entity says that is always wrong

Why can't you have confidence in your own judgement? If you think it's wrong, why can't you just say it's wrong? Why do you need the security blanket of an absolute standard?

The problem is, if there is no absolute standard by which to judge what is right and what is wrong, then to say something is wrong is utterly meaningless.

 

[logical bob]

Utterly meaningless? Hardly.

 

[Free]

Utterly meaningless? Hardly.

And my point is thus proved. You think it's wrong. The Chinese government thought it was right. You lack a standard by which to judge who is wrong and who is right. Therefore any statement of yours that what happened in that pic is wrong, is meaningless.

 

[logical bob]

You have to get out of this one dimensional thinking. That image isn't famous around the world because it contains a fact. The young man stands up all alone and defies a column of tanks, surely knowing he'll be killed as a result. Don't you think that means anything outside this true/false scheme you guys are so hung up on?

By your standard it seems that falling in love, crying at the birth of your first child, being determined to work as hard as you can to show you can excel at a new job, sailing single handed around the world to prove that you can or the triumph/despair at the end of the World Cup semifinal I was watching just now must all be meaningless because they don't correspond to an absolute measure of truth and falsehood. What an impoverished view of life!

Our moral choices are a key part of how we define who we are. What's so special about morality among all the varieties of human passion that makes this digital yes/no thing so essential?

 

[Free]

You have to get out of this one dimensional thinking. That image isn't famous around the world because it contains a fact. The young man stands up all alone and defies a column of tanks, surely knowing he'll be killed as a result. Don't you think that means anything outside this true/false scheme you guys are so hung up on?

By your standard it seems that falling in love, crying at the birth of your first child, being determined to work as hard as you can to show you can excel at a new job, sailing single handed around the world to prove that you can or the triumph/despair at the end of the World Cup semifinal I was watching just now must all be meaningless because they don't correspond to an absolute measure of truth and falsehood. What an impoverished view of life!

Our moral choices are a key part of how we define who we are. What's so special about morality among all the varieties of human passion that makes this digital yes/no thing so essential?

I don't think you're following the argument. According to your position, that there is no absolute standard for morality, any moral judgment is meaningless.

It is precisely the fact that there is an absolute moral standard that gives meaning to such judgments. No absolute standard is like trying to play a game where each player can make up the rules that they want to play by. No player can accuse any other player of breaking the rules and the game becomes pointless.

 

[jasoncran]

and the equally the bowled him over and kills him is a hero to some.

logical bob, if i had it my way, many in the world would be dead.i'm glad that i dont set the standard. for me the the punishment for adultery is death

the engineer who builds faulty and causes the death of others, and the company that knowingly does this, death

and such like

cigareetes makers death
drug pushers and so on death
you cause death, so shall you die. that is how i feel.

but alas that wont work, thankfully the lord is merciful. and i was shown some.