Legitimate Rape

Legitimate Rape November 4, 2012

In the context of all of the claims made by Republicans about rape, this video is rather amusing (though about a very serious issue).

"All of those countries are much more centralized than the U.S. You don't have people ..."

Nationalistic Strain of Christianity Shaping America’s ..."
"Most developed countries are substantially governed by a single government. And most of those countries ..."

Nationalistic Strain of Christianity Shaping America’s ..."
"I'm doubtful that we judge what is right or wrong on any sort of analysis ..."

Quote of the Day: Sheila C. ..."
"And the most ridiculous part of that belief is that some moral laws pretty much ..."

Quote of the Day: Sheila C. ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • JohnM

     Why not just legalize rape?

    After all, there’s no grounding for calling it “morally wrong” on the atheistic world view.

    • Oh dear. You obviously don’t know much about moral philosophy. Most philosophers are non-theists. Most philosophers are moral realists (such as deontologists). Please do not spout the same tired old religious claptrap which is patently false.

      God: theism or atheism?Accept or lean toward: atheism678 / 931 (72.8%)Accept or lean toward: theism136 / 931 (14.6%)Other117 / 931 (12.6%)
      Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?Accept or lean toward: moral realism525 / 931 (56.4%)Accept or lean toward: moral anti-realism258 / 931 (27.7%)Other148 / 931 (15.9%)

  • JohnM

    Rape is commonly found in the animal kingdom. From lions to gorillas.

    First the males kill each other over the females. And then the winner gets to rape all the females. Survival of the fittest. Evolution at its finest.

    Why is rape wrong for humans? After all, we are nothing more than over-grown monkeys.

    • Andy_Schueler

      Seriously ? You claimed in another thread that you debated atheists for years and you come here asking “why not legalize rape ? You can´t possibly have any morals without my imaginary friend Jeebus!!!” ?
      You need to lurk more – look up “naturalistic fallacy” and “Euthyphro dilemma” to get you started.  

    • Clare45

       Actually John it is not true about rape in the animal kingdom. Female animals will not allow the male to be near them unless they are “open” and ready to breed.

      • JohnM

         Clare45 said:

        Actually John it is not true about rape in the animal kingdom. Female animals will not allow the male to be near them unless they are “open” and ready to breed.

        Look… I’m not going to start posting youtube videos of animal rapes..

        But if you actually investigate the issue, I’m sure that you will soon discover, that rape among lions, chimps, dolphins, ducks and geese, is very common.

  • JohnM

    You’re the troll. I’m asking a serious question.

    • Do you seriously want me to answer that? It would mean a great big lesson in moral philosophy.

      What this usually means from most theists is

      “There are no ultimate consequences to morality”

      Which is true, but a whole different thing.

      For your point to be correct, you would need to establish a number of things, firstly that objective morality under God (since this is probably what you mean) has any kind of meaning, and if so, what ontology.

      You would then need to explain EVERY moral act of God since it appears that they are entirely consequentialist. This means that the grounding is not in God, but embedded within the consequences of his actions. See my essay here to start:

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/essays-and-papers/god-is-a-consequentialist/

      What annoys me about such comments is not that they are so right or so wrong (it could well be right) but that theists spew it out everywhere without even knowing what it REALLY means or how to effectively argue it (other than copy and paste a william lane craig debate transcript).

    • Andy_Schueler

       I’m asking a serious question.

      If you are asking a serious question, then your earlier claim that you “debated atheists for years” was obviously a lie, if you are not asking a serious question, you are trolling, what is it ?
       

      Rape is commonly found in the animal kingdom. From lions to gorillas.

      You have apparently never heard of the naturalistic fallacy:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

      After all, there’s no grounding for calling it “morally wrong” on the atheistic world view.

      You have apparently never heard of the Euthyphro dilemma:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
      And you also apparently never bothered to read up on the biological basis of human morality:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=all

      First the males kill each other over the females. And then the winner gets to rape all the females. Survival of the fittest. Evolution at its finest.

      You confuse “survival of the fittest” with “survival of the strongest”.

  • JohnM

    It’s such a simple question. Why is it, so hard to answer it?

    Surely, we all agree that Rape is objectively wrong, right?

    Or are there instances where it is “ok” for humans to rape each other?

    Is there such a thing as “Legitimate Rape” ?

    • Andy_Schueler

      Surely, we all agree that Rape is objectively wrong, right?

      If by “objectively wrong” you mean that everyone conscious human being can agree on it being morally wrong, independent of subjective feelings, interpretations, or prejudice and independent of the consequences of the action, then no, it is not objectively wrong.

      Or are there instances where it is “ok” for humans to rape each other?

      I don´t think so, but let´s ask the good book:
      “15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”
      Numbers 31:15-18

      Also, let´s not forget that, under hebrew law, rape was not illegal because it is incredibly painful and traumatizing experience for the victims – it was illegal because it damaged the property of the father of the raped woman in case of victims that were virgins (which is why the rapist had to marry his victim and reimburse his father in law with 30 silver coins for damaging his property) or it damaged the property of the husband for victims that were married (in which case the woman that was raped has to be stoned as well if she didn´t scream loud enough).
      Rape is excellent example for how morality evolves.  

      • I can’t believe I missed that one!!!! The irony of the Bible countenancing rape!

        In the UK:

        Under section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if:_ A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis;_ B does not consent to the penetration; and,_ A does not reasonably believe that B consents.So God, and thus the Jews at the time, and thus Christians now, believe that it, being decreed by God, was morally right. But it is now legally, and objectively (according to John) wrong.er, slam dunk.

    • It’s not hard, per se, it is VERY time consuming indeed. I would suggest following some of those links, going to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and looking up morality, and perhaps deontology or Kantian Categorical Imperatives.

      However, before doing that, would you like to explain what you mean by objective?

      I would like you to tell me what “rape is objectively wrong” actually means. Because the true sense of the word usually means that it actually exists. Therefore, what is the onotology objective morality? Where does it exist? Do you believe in a Platonic realm of abstract ideas? Can ou touch them? If not, then what is the ontology of a moral law or a moral action?

      So, you see, throwing out a sentence like that is not so easy as you think. There may not be objective morality because this might mean we need another realm of forms for these ‘things’ to exist in. Are you prepared to set out your account of how objective morality exists? Can you tell me about reasons internalism and reasons externalism? About whether a realist or nominalist account of universals might affect morality?

      It is not such a simple question when the question itself can be analysed in book-length!

      So tell me what you mean by objective morality, and i might give you an answer.

  • JohnM

    You guys are so weak… It’s such a simple question. And you can’t even answer it.

    • Andy_Schueler

      You guys are so weak… It’s such a simple question. And you can’t even answer it.

      Are you lying (again) or just too lazy to read ?

    • Don’t be a douche. Explain the question and i/ might. Otherwise, go and do the required reading. As you have been arguing this for years, one would assume you would know. 

      I have also greatly answered your question with a 5000 word essay linked.

      Man, don’t even bother taking that tone here if you 
      1) cannot explain the question
      2) cannot be bothered to read what we have given you when you have asked.

  • [[Why is rape wrong for humans?]]

    Kant wrote that the very basis of morality was respect for one’s own autonomy and the autonomy of others – which goes beyond the concept of the Golden Rule or “do unto others.” If you in any way take the power of choice away from someone, you have committed an immoral act. If you impose your will on another person, you have committed an immoral act. The essence of acts of murder, rape, and torture is that they are perpetrated by upon an unwilling person. Each involves imposing one person’s will upon another in horrific ways – therefore, they are immoral.

    Now if you ask but what does it take for ‘wrongness’ to enter above and beyond rationality, the answer is nothing. It’s not wrong for a lion because a lion cannot reflect upon its behavior.
     

  • BTW, there is a vast difference between normative ethics and foundational ethics. Normative ethics does not NEED a foundation.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20407803

  • I think it was Sam Harris that wrote that morality must relate, at some level, to the well-being of conscious creatures. If there are more and less effective ways for us to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this world—and there clearly are—then there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.

  • A helpful video is William Lane Craig vs Shelly Kagan. One of the first time I have seen Craig actually get smoked bad.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo&list=FLY6aJWmo0N2nf3XhEhQ7jNw&index=17&feature=plpp_video

    Especially watch the question/answer section starting at 0:42:07

  • JohnM

    John Grove :

    If you impose your will on another person, you have committed an immoral act.

    Mmmmk. So raising children is actually immoral?

    If you in any way take the power of choice away from someone, you have committed an immoral act.

    So sending people to prison, is immoral? And what if you prevent someone, from exercising the power of choice, to raping their children. Is that immoral too?

    Also.. you didn’t even answer the question.. Why is it wrong / immoral?

    Now if you ask but what does it take for ‘wrongness’ to enter above and beyond rationality, the answer is nothing.

    So basically, there is no right and wrong.. Just things that are “inappropriate” to do, according to herd morality…

    Or to quote Richard Dawkins..
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

    • Andy_Schueler

      So basically, there is no right and wrong.. Just things that are “inappropriate” to do, according to herd morality…

      There is no objective right or wrong – morality is, and always was, based on complex mixture of reason, tradition, authority, empathy, compassion and fairness. 
      Luckily, empathy, compassion and reason are now playing a much bigger role in shaping our moral decisions that they used to not that long ago – which is why rational people condemn the Bible, and especially the OT, as barbaric, superstitious, genocidal, bigoted garbage.

  • [[ So raising children is actually immoral?]]

    A child is not rational enough to completely know right and wrong so of course must be under the supervision of the parents. What if the parents are not rational and endangers the life of the child? The child should then be taken out of the parents care.

    [[So sending people to prison, is immoral? ]]

    No, because they are a greater threat to the community if left unchecked. Remember I said that morality entails rationality.

    [[Also.. you didn’t even answer the question.. Why is it wrong / immoral?]]

    Because you and I are capable of appreciating reasons why we should/should not act a certain way and we can reflect upon our behavior. It is as simple as that.

    [[Why is it immoral to imposing one’s will upon another?]]

    Because morality is about lessening harm. Revisit the quote from Sam Harris:

    ” morality must relate, at some level, to the well-being of conscious
    creatures. If there are more and less effective ways for us to seek
    happiness and to avoid misery in this world—and there clearly are—then
    there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.”

  • JohnM

    John Grove :

    A child is not rational enough to completely know right and wrong so of course must be under the supervision of the parents.

    Ok…. so if they aren’t aware of it, it’s perfectly fine to impose your will on another person. Got it.

    No, because they are a greater threat to the community if left unchecked.

    What if one thinks that young women running freely around, is a threat to the community. Is it then moral to lock them up in ones closet?

    Because you and I are capable of appreciating reasons why we should/should not act a certain way and we can reflect upon our behavior.

    What if I reflect upon my behaviour, and come to the conclusion.. that it is my right to do so.. and that I’m justified in doing so?

    Because morality is about lessening harm.

    Paedophiles will often argue, they aren’t harming the children, but rather giving them pleasure. If Paedophiles truly think that.. Are their actions not moral?

    • Andy_Schueler

      Paedophiles will often argue, they aren’t harming the children, but rather giving them pleasure.

      You are talking about child molesters, not pedophiles – big difference, not every child molester is a pedophile (actually, most of them are not) and not every pedophile is a child molester (again, most of them are not). 
      And if a child molester would actually argue that, any child psychologist (and frankly, any person with even just a shred of empathy) could easily prove them wrong. 

    • As Andy and I have said, we cannot effectively answer your question until you fully explain the term ‘objective’ morality. I am more than happy to attempt to answer you, but i simply cannot until I know what you mean. This is the same point made by Peter Millican against William Lane Craig in debate. There are simply too many definitions of objective. Sort that issue out and we can talk morality.

  • [[Ok…. so if they aren’t aware of it, it’s perfectly fine to impose your will on another person. Got it]]

    Note, you are taking what I said completely out of context forgetting totally about what I said about rationality. The original question was why is rape wrong. I said if you impose your will to hurt, endanger or kill someone that is an example of something morally wrong. “Imposing your will” can never be justified to hurt, kill, rape anyone. Don’t misrepresent because you don’t understand basic moral theories. Somehow I think your questions are all insincere.

    [[Paedophiles will often argue, they aren’t harming the children, but
    rather giving them pleasure. If Paedophiles truly think that.. Are their
    actions not moral?]]

    A child is not in a position to give consent. Moral theories examines an act’s rightness or wrongness in light of such factors as consequences, harm, and consent.

  • Let me turn every question that you have posed back to you and have you give me reasons why or why not the above are immoral? And don’t just say God says so….

    How would accepting the demands of one God as being absolutely true and correct enable us to get any closer to objectively grounding morality? How would accepting the conclusion of this God be more objectively grounded than accepting the conclusion of a dictator?. Is the difference between the thought of a human verses the thought of a supernatural being what defines something as being objectively grounded?

  • JohnM is simply irrational and just ignoring all that we are saying anyway. As I said, normative ethics can be studied, argued without the need to focus on foundational ethics.

  • Andy_Schueler

    JohnM, 
    why don´t you answer some questions for us.
    You believe in objective morality as it seems, if that is the case, why don´t you explain what exactly “objective” is supposed to mean in this case ? Does it mean that morality exists independently of subjective emotions, interpretations and prejudice and independently of a cultural background ? If so, where is morality located ? Does it exist in something like Platon´s realm of ideas ? And if so, how do you know that ? And how do you know what it looks like (i.e. how do you know what is moral and what is not ?) 

    Most importantly, how do explain the simple fact that morality evolves – rape is a perfect example for that, many instances of rape were not considered to be immoral just a few decades ago (e.g. spousal rape) and many instances are still considered to be morally acceptable (you´ll find quite a lot of people who will argue that prison rape is not a problem because the convicts who are raped “had it coming”). Also, the reason why we consider rape to be immoral is completely different compared to why it was immoral in biblical times – we consider it immoral because it violates the bodily autonomy of the victim and is incredibly hurtful and traumatizing, while the Bible sees rape as an act of damaging the property  of men (the father or the husband, which is why mosaic law requires a rapist to marry a woman he raped and reimburse the father of his victim for damaging his property). If there is objective morality, how can it be that our views on morality are evolving constantly ? 

    To give a specific example – Is it, or is it not, a moral act to execute a homosexual person ? Explain why it is moral, or not. 

  • Is it ok to kill another human being for the imaginary crime of “witchcraft”?

  • Is it ok to own slaves? Is slavery acceptable?

  • Andy_Schueler

    You guys are so weak… It’s such a simple question. And you can’t even answer it.

    We answered your questions JohnM, where is your answer ? 

  • Andy_Schueler

    And brave Sir John is gone again, what a surprise.

  • I think the fact that rape was countenanced in the OT (and, interestingly, I was reading a bit about this in Steven Pinker’s How The Mind Works today) really does put a spanner in John’s works. Straight from the mouth of God!

    • Andy_Schueler

      I think the fact that rape was countenanced in the OT (and, interestingly, I was reading a bit about this in Steven Pinker’s How The Mind Works today) really does put a spanner in John’s works.

      And strangely enough, I´ve never seen apologists trying to explain away the atrocious biblical views on rape. 
      I´ve seen apologists trying to explain away the ugly parts in the Bible related to slavery (they just ignore Exodus 21:20 and pretend that slaves were actually treated very well by the israelites) or genocide (murdering children is totally better than letting them grow up to pray to false Gods!), or homosexuality (the gays could have chosen to not engage in homosexual acts and then they would not have been killed!). 
      But they never try to explain away the ugly parts about rape…

      • My theologian friend takes the tack of God having to appeal to the people in the language and culture of the time. Too much of a paradigm shift wouldn’t have worked.

        You can imagine my retorts to that.

  • I find comical is the distortions made to make the bible say something clearly different with what it has said. Whether it be the gap theory, young earth creationism, old earth creationism, progressive creationism, theistic evolution, intelligent design to a poetic genesis. It is humorous that old bible just cannot say what it means or mean what it says.

    Hermeneutics is really about taking the plain meanings of the bible and twisting it beyond recognition to save face.

  • JohnM

    Andy_Schueler:

    You are talking about child molesters, not pedophiles – big difference, not every child molester is a pedophile (actually, most of them are not) and not every pedophile is a child molester (again, most of them are not).

    So fantasising about raping small children, is morally acceptable, because your not actually hurting anyone?

    • Andy_Schueler

      So fantasising about raping small children, is morally acceptable, because you’re not actually hurting anyone?

      1. I didn´t say this. I explained to you that the set of people that are child molesters and the set of people that are pedophiles has actually just a very small overlap.
      2. The majority of pedophiles realize that having sex with children would be a terrible thing to do and try their best to never act according to their sexual orientation, some even go so far and get voluntary chemical castrations to assure that. You are not helping them by lumping them together with child molester (most of which, again, are not pedophiles themselves). 
      3. There is no such thing as a “thought crime” – you cannot choose what you think, try to think of a situation where the sight of a beautiful man would sexually arouse you – if you are not gay or bisexual, you could not do that, just like a gay man could not choose to think of a situation where the sight of a beautiful woman would sexually arouse him. 
      4. Where is your answer JohnM ? 

  • JohnM

    John Grove :

    A child is not in a position to give consent.

    So if people give consent, everything is moral?

    I also note, that you didn’t answer several of my questions:

    What if I reflect upon my behaviour, and come to the conclusion.. that it is my right to do so.. and that I’m justified in doing so?

    Interestingly, Shelly Kagan also fell short, on somewhat the same question… So let me rephrase it:

    What if I don’t want to sign the moral contract that Shelly Kagan is talking about? Why am I then wrong to do what serves me best?
     

    • Andy_Schueler

      What if I don’t want to sign the moral contract that Shelly Kagan is talking about? Why am I then wrong to do what serves me best?

      If you don´t agree with the moral contract of your culture – try to change it. Social activism is how we got rid of barbarism like slavery and blasphemy laws, 
      If you think gays should be stoned, then try to convince your fellow citizens that this is the right thing to do – but I can tell you right now that you will be socially ostracized for voicing that opinion and you will be locked up if you would actually murder a person for being gay.

      We are again answering your questions JohnM. Where is your answer ?

    •  [[So if people give consent, everything is moral?]]

      What did I say? Moral theories examines an act’s rightness or wrongness in light of such factors as consequences, harm, and consent. All three must be considered when examining an act’s rightness or wrongness.

      [[What if I reflect upon my behaviour, and come to the conclusion.. that it is my right to do so.. and that I’m justified in doing so?]]

      Then you are irrational. No one can rationally be a pedophile nor can they defend it using rationality.

      [[What if I don’t want to sign the moral contract that Shelly Kagan is
      talking about? ]]

      Shelly did answer it. You are bound by morality, we all are. You have not presented us with any alternative moral theory that can be argued for. Indeed you are not arguing for a moral theory at all. You are just your typical uninformed Christian who thinks he is profound when in reality you are profoundly uninformed asking questions that display how uninformed you really are.

  • I thought we asked you questions. Will you address those or just continue your monologue ?

  • [[So fantasising about raping small children, is morally acceptable, because your not actually hurting anyone?]]

    In the book “Incognito” there was a study where a faithful good husband began looking at child porn. It turned out he had a tumor in his brain. When the tumor was removed, his interest in child porn was also removed. If I had thoughts of killing people or raping innocent children, I would begin to suspect I was the victim of a brain abnormality.

  • As Andy and I have said, we cannot effectively answer your question until you fully explain the term ‘objective’ morality. I am more than happy to attempt to answer you, but i simply cannot until I know what you mean. This is the same point made by Peter Millican against William Lane Craig in debate. There are simply too many definitions of objective. Sort that issue out and we can talk morality.

  • If you want to argue that you are justified in raping small innocent children, let’s hear your case.

  • JohnM

    Andy_Schueler :

    If you don´t agree with the moral contract of your culture – try to change it.

    So if you don’t agree with rape being wrong, you can just go ahead and change it?

    • “Raptus ad stuprum, “abduction for the purpose of committing a sex crime,” emerged as a legal distinction in the late Roman Republic.[2] The Lex Julia de vi publica,[3] recorded in the early 3rd century AD but dating probably from the dictatorship of Julius Caesar, defined rape as forced sex against “boy, woman, or anyone”.[4]”

      It was not a crime, then became one. That is how moral progress works. Of course, God thought it was A OK.

    •  [[So if you don’t agree with rape being wrong, you can just go ahead and change it?]]

      A contract that is simply reflective of majority opinion is flawed,
      because majority opinion is not enough to determine right from wrong. The ‘thought experiment’ which Kagan alluded to went something like this: imagine you are on
      a committee tasked with creating the rules according to which society
      would function. Everyone on this committee is equal in knowledge and
      power, so that no one can dominate. Once the committee formulates a set of rules or principles, each member will have to live in the society they have created.

      However, they do not know who they will be, whether they will be male
      or female, black or white, strong or weak, intelligent or not, etc. This
      is known as the “Veil of Ignorance.”

    • Andy_Schueler

      So if you don’t agree with rape being wrong, you can just go ahead and change it?

      By all means, make your case – you want rape (all forms of it ?) to be legal – try to convince me, why should it be legal ? 

  • JohnM

    John Grove :

    Then you are irrational.

    How does being irrational, makes it wrong for me to rape and murder?

    You are bound by morality, we all are.

    Why? And who/what binds us?

    Remember that I’ve rejected the social contract.

    • [[How does being irrational, makes it wrong for me to rape and murder?]]

      Because rationality is a perquisite to understanding morality. There is a categorical valid moral reason for you NOT to rape and murder.

      [[Why? And who/what binds us?]]

      Commit rape and see what happens to you. When you are in prison you can then ask that same question.

    • Andy_Schueler

      Why? And who/what binds us?

      Your conscience, your compassion, your empathy, your sense of fairness, your set of values based on upbringing and shaped by reflection and experience.
      If you lack some or all of these abilities, you would be a sociopath (which is usually a consequence of frontal lobe deficiencies or injuries) and you would sooner or later commit a violent crime (unless you are still rational enough to not act on violent urges because you know that you would get locked up for it).

  • JohnM

    Jonathan :

    I am more than happy to attempt to answer you, but i simply cannot until I know what you mean. This is the same point made by Peter Millican against William Lane Craig in debate.

    To my knowledge, Craig explains what he means by objective moral values and duties, in every debate that he participates in. You are free to use that, if you want.

  • Andy_Schueler

    And again, JohnM, we are answering your questions.
    WHERE IS YOUR ANSWER JOHNM ?

    Try to act like an honest decent human being for fucks sake. You whine when your questions are not answered:
    “You guys are so weak… It’s such a simple question. And you can’t even answer it.” (and when you were whining, we already did answer your question) – but you lack the basic decency to answer our questions.

    WHERE IS YOUR ANSWER JOHNM ?

    • I concur, Andy. Some serious double standards. You DO need to do some work here, John.

  • JohnM

    Andy_Schueler :

    By all means, make your case – you want rape to be legal – try to convince me, why should it be legal ?

    Well.. nobody seems to be able to tell me, what makes rape wrong. So why should it not be legal?

    • Andy_Schueler

      Well.. nobody seems to be able to tell me, what makes rape wrong. So why should it not be legal?

      We DID tell you – it is 
      a) a violation of bodily autonomy (it´s her / his body, not yours ).
      and 
      b) it is incredibly hurtful and traumatizing.
      We, as a society, agreed that those are very good reasons to outlaw rape and punish it severely when it happens. 
      You disagree – make your case and try to convince us. 

      But before that:
      ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS JOHNM, WE ANSWERED YOURS – IT´S YOUR TURN NOW

    • i can tell you why rape is wrong in a dozen different ways. What kind of wrong do you want? I suspect, objectively wrong. Therefore, I need you to define what that means.

      i can tell you why is is wrong on a universally subjective manner using reliable rationality and sanity and logic, i can tell you from a consequentialist point of view, using both rule and act utilitarianism. I can tell you from a Kantian point of view by point of fact it is using a human as a means to an end. I can tell you from a moral relativist point of view, form our society looking back to your biblical society. i can tell you from an error theory perspective where I deem it wrong, but i am indeed wrong. i can tell you from a whole host more.

      But if you want it from an objectively morally wrong point of view, i simply need you to define the terms. It is not that hard, surely? You know what you mean? Do you?

      Do you?

  • JohnM

    John Grove :

    There is a categorical valid moral reason for you NOT to rape and murder.

    What is that?

    And why should I not just act in my self-interest despite of that?

    • [[What is that?]]
      Because morality is about human (and animal) well being and these acts hurt others.

      [[And why should I not just act in my self-interest despite of that?]]

      Some people do act in their own self interest, and they are immoral. We are talking about morality NOT law. If you choose to act that way and rape a child, you would then be subject to the law.

  • JohnM

    Andy_Schueler :

    Your conscience, your compassion, your empathy, your sense of fairness, your set of values based on upbringing and shaped by reflection and experience.

    Why should I be compelled to value that above my own self interest in raping women?

    Why am I forced to value that above my own self interest in raping women?

    • Andy_Schueler

      ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS JOHNM, WE ANSWERED YOURS – IT´S YOUR TURN NOW

      Why should I be compelled to value that above my own self interest in raping women?

      1. Compassion and empathy, both abilities (if you are mentally healthy and actually have them) would compel you to not hurt others so severely. 
      2. Reason would tell you that if bodily autonomy of others is not valued and respected by everyone, you could rape men and women weaker than you – but men and women stronger than you could do the same to you. 

      Why am I forced to value that above my own self interest in raping women?

      Because most human beings are capable of empathy and compassion – and we took measures protect ourselves against the people who are not. 

      ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS JOHNM, WE ANSWERED YOURS – IT´S YOUR TURN NOW

  • [[Your conscience, your compassion, your empathy, your sense of fairness,
    your set of values based on upbringing and shaped by reflection and
    experience.]]

    And if you don’t possess these in your intellect, rest assured that others do. I have never read a case where there was an excused rapist so these questions are moot. Notice in all these responses JohnM cannot seem to realize the distinction I made between normative ethics vs foundational ethics. In every question he brought up, ALL of them are normative. Why is rape wrong (it hurts others), why is pedophilia wrong (child cannot give consent, manipulation by an adult to his own selfish desires). These are why they are immoral.

    Can you address our previous questions now?

  • JohnM

    Jonathan :

    I concur, Andy. Some serious double standards. You DO need to do some work here, John.

    My goal, is to show, that there’s no grounding for calling rape “morally wrong” on the atheistic world view. So far, that’s going just according to plan.

    Why should I abandon my own goal, and devote time to changing subject? Why shouldn’t I just continue to serve my own interests?

    • On categorical imperatives: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#CatHypImp

      “My goal, is to show, that there’s no grounding for calling rape “morally wrong” on the atheistic world view.”

      OK, now you have changed your terminology. Before it was objectively morally wrong, now it is just morally wrong. I can tell you how it is morally wrong from a host of different moral frameworks, too, as mentioned before. Do mean just morally wrong or objectively morally wrong? This is VERY important. and if objectively, please tell me what that means. I HAVE to know otherwise I simply CANNOT answer your question BECAUSE I DON’T UNDERSTAND IT!

    •  [[My goal, is to show, that there’s no grounding for calling rape “morally
      wrong” on the atheistic world view. So far, that’s going just according
      to plan.]]

      The bible says it ok to take the virgins after exterminating a city. So how can god be against rape?

  • The bible is not against rape.

    http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

  • JohnM

    Andy_Schueler :

    a violation of bodily autonomy

    Why is that such a bad thing?

    If I’m doing it, I must like it. Why should I place anyone’s needs above my own?

    it is incredibly hurtful and traumatizing

    If I’m doing it, I must like it. Why should I place anyone’s needs above my own?

    We, as a society, agreed that those are very good reasons to outlaw rape and punish it severely when it happens.

    Why should I care about society? Why should I not just care about myself and what I want to do?

    And what gives society the right to judge me? I never signed that contract.

    Why should I care that society punish that sort of things? I’ll just do as a like, escape, and do it again elsewhere.

    • Andy_Schueler

      ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS JOHNM, WE ANSWERED YOURS – IT´S YOUR TURN NOW

      Why is that such a bad thing?If I’m doing it, I must like it. Why should I place anyone’s needs above my own?

      Again, if you actually are devoid of compassion and empathy (are you ?), you are a sociopath (did you suffer an injury to the forehead recently ? Or did you already torture small animals as a kid ?) 

      If I’m doing it, I must like it. Why should I place anyone’s needs above my own?

      The vast majority of human beings are capable of compassion and empathy, and we protect ourselves against scum like you. 

      Why should I care about society? Why should I not just care about myself and what I want to do?

      If you honestly do believe that and act accordingly, we will lock your ass up. 

      And what gives society the right to judge me? I never signed that contract.

      You have the right to try to change it. 

      Why should I care that society punish that sort of things? I’ll just do as a like, escape, and do it again elsewhere.

      If you are as competent in breaking out of prison as you are in debating, I highly doubt that.

      ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS JOHNM, WE ANSWERED YOURS – IT´S YOUR TURN NOW

  • It seems our moral frameworks are more robust than killing witches and homosexuals. (That must be ok since god sanctioned it)

  • JohnM

    John Grove :

    And if you don’t possess these in your intellect, rest assured that others do.

    Why should I care what others think, about what’s right or wrong?

    Why is rape wrong (it hurts others)

    Why does that make it wrong?

    why is pedophilia wrong (child cannot give consent, manipulation by an adult to his own selfish desires)

    Why is that wrong?

    These are why they are immoral.

    Why are they immoral?

  • JohnM

    John Grove :

    Because morality is about human (and animal) well being and these acts hurt others.

    Why should I care about other’s well being? Why shouldn’t I just do as I pleases?

    Some people do act in their own self interest, and they are immoral.

    Why are they immoral?

  • [[Why is that such a bad thing?]]

    Because it harms others. Morality is about lessening human (and animal) suffering.

    [[If I’m doing it, I must like it. Why should I place anyone’s needs above my own?]]

    We are discussing morality and moral theories. This doesn’t pass the muster with regards to being rational. It’s purely selfish. The moral theories I subscribe to denounce them.

    [[Why should I care about society?]]

    Because I care about the well being of human beings.

    [[Why should I not just care about myself and what I want to do?]]

    Then it appears that a dog has more morality than you, see here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HJTG6RRN4E

  • JohnM

     John Grove :

    Compassion and empathy, both abilities (if you are mentally healthy and actually have them) would compel you to not hurt others so severely.

    Why should I give into compassion and empathy?

    Why shouldn’t I not hurt others, to get what I want?

    Reason would tell you that if bodily autonomy of others is not valued and respected by everyone, you could rape men and women weaker than you – but men and women stronger than you could do the same to you.

    What if I think that I’m smarter than everyone else?

    What if I’m willing to take the risk?

    Because most human beings are capable of empathy and compassion

    Why should allow that to prevent my from reaching my goals?

    Nice guys finish last, you know…

    • Why should you, John, as an Israelite man, agree to rape Midianite women?

      Because God says so? Euthryphro dlilemma?

    • Andy_Schueler

      ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS JOHNM, WE ANSWERED YOURS – IT´S YOUR TURN NOW

      Why should I give into compassion and empathy?Why shouldn’t I not hurt others, to get what I want?

      If you hurt others to get what you want and see nothing wrong with this, this would mean that you lack conscience, compassion and empathy – you would be a sociopath. 

      What if I think that I’m smarter than everyone else?
      What if I’m willing to take the risk?

      Then we´ll lock your ass up.

      Why should allow that to prevent my from reaching my goals?
      Nice guys finish last, you know…

      No, they don´t – you are just not a nice guy, don´t fool yourself. 

      ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS JOHNM, WE ANSWERED YOURS – IT´S YOUR TURN NOW

  • JohnM,
    You are an idiot by every sense of the word. An internet troll. You are insincere and pathetic. Religious zealots have about as much integrity as you can get into the left eye of a blind mosquito.

  • I think the article on mockery that Johnny had is applicable here to JohnM.

  • JohnM

    Jonathan :

    OK, now you have changed your terminology. Before it was objectively morally wrong, now it is just morally wrong.

    I said this in my first post:

    After all, there’s no grounding for calling it(rape) “morally wrong” on the atheistic world view.

    But I’m happy to add objectively wrong.. Because, in order for something to actually be wrong, it has to be objectively wrong. If it’s subjectively wrong, then it’s not really wrong, then its just you who have an opinion about it.

    I can tell you how it is morally wrong from a host of different moral frameworks, too, as mentioned before.

    I’m not interested in what different frameworks thinks about rape. I’m interested in, WHY they think is wrong. The moral foundation, on which to make proclaim it to bee wrong. And not just “I think it’s wrong”. For it to be wrong, it has to be wrong, regardless of what I think.

    • Andy_Schueler

      You believe in objective morality as it seems, if that is the case, why don´t you explain what exactly “objective” is supposed to mean in this case ? Does it mean that morality exists independently of subjective emotions, interpretations and prejudice and independently of a cultural background ? If so, where is morality located ? Does it exist in something like Platon´s realm of ideas ? And if so, how do you know that ? And how do you know what it looks like (i.e. how do you know what is moral and what is not ?) 

      Most importantly, how do explain the simple fact that morality evolves – rape is a perfect example for that, many instances of rape were not considered to be immoral just a few decades ago (e.g. spousal rape) and many instances are still considered to be morally acceptable (you´ll find quite a lot of people who will argue that prison rape is not a problem because the convicts who are raped “had it coming”). Also, the reason why we consider rape to be immoral is completely different compared to why it was immoral in biblical times – we consider it immoral because it violates the bodily autonomy of the victim and is incredibly hurtful and traumatizing, while the Bible sees rape as an act of damaging the property  of men (the father or the husband, which is why mosaic law requires a rapist to marry a woman he raped and reimburse the father of his victim for damaging his property). If there is objective morality, how can it be that our views on morality are evolving constantly ? 

      To give a specific example – Is it, or is it not, a moral act to execute two adults because they engaged in consensual homosexual acts ? Explain why it is moral, or not. Or can you not answer this simple question ?

  • [[I’m not interested in what different frameworks thinks about rape. I’m interested in, WHY they think is wrong.]]

    That is exactly what the moral frameworks do. They do tell you why. (harm consent, consequence). The moral frameworks study and seek to explain why, yours does not. You simply say god says it (and then commands otherwise).

    [[For it to be wrong, it has to be wrong, regardless of what I think.]]

    Is the following wrong? If so how?

    1. God drowns the whole earth. In Genesis 7:21-23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, fetuses, and perhaps unicorns.
    Only a single family survives. In Matthew 24:37-42, gentle Jesus approves of this genocide and plans to repeat it when he returns.

    2. God kills half a million people.
    In 2 Chronicles 13:15-18, God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites.

    3. God slaughters all Egyptian firstborn.
    In Exodus 12:29, God the baby-killer slaughters all Egyptian firstborn children and cattle because their king was stubborn.

    4. God kills 14,000 people for complaining that God keeps killing them .
    In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.

    5. Genocide after genocide after genocide.
    In Joshua 6:20-21, God helps the Israelites destroy Jericho, killing “men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” In Deuteronomy 2:32-35, God has the Israelites kill everyone in Heshbon, including children. In Deuteronomy 3:3-7, God has the Israelites do the same to the people of Bashan. In Numbers 31:7-18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they take as spoils of war. In 1 Samuel 15:1-9, God tells the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites – men, women, children, infants, and their cattle – for something the Amalekites’ ancestors had done 400 years earlier.

    6. God kills 50,000 people for curiosity.
    In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant. (Newer cosmetic translations count only 70 deaths, but their text notes admit that the best and earliest manuscripts put the number at 50,070.)

    7. 3,000 Israelites killed for inventing a god.
    In Exodus 32, Moses has climbed Mount Sinai to get the Ten Commandments. The Israelites are bored, so they invent a golden calf god. Moses comes back and God commands him: “Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.” About 3,000 people died.

    8. The Amorites destroyed by sword and by God’s rocks.
    In Joshua 10:10-11, God helps the Israelites slaughter the Amorites by sword, then finishes them off with rocks from the sky.

    9. God burns two cities to death.
    In Genesis 19:24, God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah with fire from the sky. Then God kills Lot’s wife for looking back at her burning home.

    10. God has 42 children mauled by bears.
    In 2 Kings 2:23-24, some kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to dismember them. (Newer cosmetic translations say the bears “maul” the children, but the original Hebrew, baqa, means “to tear apart.”)

    11. A tribe slaughtered and their virgins raped for not showing up at roll call.
    In Judges 21:1-23, a tribe of Israelites misses roll call, so the other Israelites kill them all except for the virgins, which they take for themselves. Still not happy, they hide in vineyards and pounce on dancing women from Shiloh to take them for themselves.

    12. 3,000 crushed to death.
    In Judges 16:27-30, God gives Samson strength to bring down a building to crush 3,000 members of a rival tribe.

    13. A concubine raped and dismembered.
    In Judges 19:22-29, a mob demands to rape a godly master’s guest. The master offers his daughter and a concubine to them instead. They take the concubine and gang-raped her all night. The master finds her on his doorstep in the morning, cuts her into 12 pieces, and ships the pieces around the country.

    14. Child sacrifice.
    In Judges 11:30-39, Jephthah burns his daughter alive as a sacrificial offering for God’s favor in killing the Ammonites.

    15. God helps Samson kill 30 men because he lost a bet.
    In Judges 14:11-19, Samson loses a bet for 30 sets of clothes. The spirit of God comes upon him and he kills 30 men to steal their clothes and pay off the debt.

    16. God demands you kill your wife and children for worshiping other gods.
    In Deuteronomy 13:6-10, God commands that you must kill your wife, children, brother, and friend if they worship other gods.

    17. God incinerates 51 men to make a point.
    In 2 Kings 1:9-10, Elijah gets God to burn 51 men with fire from heaven to prove he is God.

    18. God kills a man for not impregnating his brother’s widow.
    In Genesis 38:9-10, God kills a man for refusing to impregnate his brother’s widow.

    19. God threatens forced cannibalism.
    In Leviticus 26:27-29 and Jeremiah 19:9, God threatens to punish the Israelites by making them eat their own children.

    20. The coming slaughter.
    According to Revelation 9:7-19, God’s got more evil coming. God will make horse-like locusts with human heads and scorpion tails, who torture people for 5 months. Then some angels will kill a third of the earth’s population. If he came today, that would be 2 billion people.

  • JohnM

    John Grove :

    It seems our moral frameworks are more robust than killing witches and homosexuals.

    Why is it wrong to kill witches and homosexuals?

    • Andy_Schueler

      Why is it wrong to kill witches and homosexuals?

      You believe in objective morality as it seems, if that is the case, why don´t you explain what exactly “objective” is supposed to mean in this case ? Does it mean that morality exists independently of subjective emotions, interpretations and prejudice and independently of a cultural background ? If so, where is morality located ? Does it exist in something like Platon´s realm of ideas ? And if so, how do you know that ? And how do you know what it looks like (i.e. how do you know what is moral and what is not ?) 

      Most importantly, how do explain the simple fact that morality evolves – rape is a perfect example for that, many instances of rape were not considered to be immoral just a few decades ago (e.g. spousal rape) and many instances are still considered to be morally acceptable (you´ll find quite a lot of people who will argue that prison rape is not a problem because the convicts who are raped “had it coming”). Also, the reason why we consider rape to be immoral is completely different compared to why it was immoral in biblical times – we consider it immoral because it violates the bodily autonomy of the victim and is incredibly hurtful and traumatizing, while the Bible sees rape as an act of damaging the property  of men (the father or the husband, which is why mosaic law requires a rapist to marry a woman he raped and reimburse the father of his victim for damaging his property). If there is objective morality, how can it be that our views on morality are evolving constantly ? 

      To give a specific example – Is it, or is it not, a moral act to execute two adults because they engaged in consensual homosexual acts ? Explain why it is moral, or not. Or can you not answer this simple question ?

  • JohnM

    John Grove :

    Because I care about the well being of human beings.

    Why should I care about, what you cares about?

    Because it harms others.

    Why is it wrong to harm others, if it serves my self-interests?

    • Andy_Schueler

      Why is it wrong to harm others, if it serves my self-interests?

      You believe in objective morality as it seems, if that is the case, why don´t you explain what exactly “objective” is supposed to mean in this case ? Does it mean that morality exists independently of subjective emotions, interpretations and prejudice and independently of a cultural background ? If so, where is morality located ? Does it exist in something like Platon´s realm of ideas ? And if so, how do you know that ? And how do you know what it looks like (i.e. how do you know what is moral and what is not ?) Most importantly, how do explain the simple fact that morality evolves – rape is a perfect example for that, many instances of rape were not considered to be immoral just a few decades ago (e.g. spousal rape) and many instances are still considered to be morally acceptable (you´ll find quite a lot of people who will argue that prison rape is not a problem because the convicts who are raped “had it coming”). Also, the reason why we consider rape to be immoral is completely different compared to why it was immoral in biblical times – we consider it immoral because it violates the bodily autonomy of the victim and is incredibly hurtful and traumatizing, while the Bible sees rape as an act of damaging the property  of men (the father or the husband, which is why mosaic law requires a rapist to marry a woman he raped and reimburse the father of his victim for damaging his property). If there is objective morality, how can it be that our views on morality are evolving constantly ? To give a specific example – Is it, or is it not, a moral act to execute two adults because they engaged in consensual homosexual acts ? Explain why it is moral, or not. Or can you not answer this simple question ?

    • [[Why should I care about, what you cares about?]]

      You came on this post demanding you were sincere when you were not. You are a liar. I guess you support that too since you employ it in your rhetoric. Lying to you is like changing your shoes.

  • Andy,
    He doesn’t employ reason so how can he answer you except to say “The bible says….”

    Circular….absurd………juvenile…(What we expected. JohnM is an internet troll)

    • Andy_Schueler

      Circular….absurd………juvenile…(What we expected. JohnM is an internet troll)

      Indeed, but at least he admits to being a dishonest asshat as he did here:

      Why should I abandon my own goal, and devote time to changing subject? Why shouldn’t I just continue to serve my own interests?

      He might be a dishonest, slimy, lying little shit, but at least he´s aware of that.

    • All i want to know is what objective means.

      I can give a full account of why rape is wrong from a utilitarian point of view and this normally suffices for objective morality (as well as other forms of objectivism). However, i am not sure, since you will not define objective, whether this qualifies for your version of objective. Since it is moral realism by point of fact that the action purporting a moral fact, then it is objective – independent of human minds, so to speak. But it depends what you define as objective anyway.

      Eg

      Assuming that moral realism is true and that there are “objectively true” moral principles,what are they? What, for example, is the correct principle concerning lying? Threepossibilities:i) Lying is impermissible in all circumstances. (To believe this is to be an “absolutist” about the wrongness of lying) such as a Kanitan Categorical Imperativeii) Lying is impermissible except when it’s necessary to prevent a great evil on theorder of a murder, in which case it’s obligatory.iii) Lying is impermissible only when it produces worse consequences than being honest would (as it usually does). When lying would produce better consequences than honesty, it’s obligatory.

      All of these moral frameworks are independent of God.

      Your argument, I imagine, tries to claim that morality can only be objective with the framework of God. Not only is this not true (just do any reading on moral realism) but it is also problematic since ALL actions of the Bible derive their morality from outside of God, through consequentialist ethics, and we have CLEARLY seen a moral zeitgesit, evolving to a point where things IN THE BIBLE are now morally reprehensible.

      Slavery was countenanced
      Rape was countenanced
      Murder was countenanced
      Females were financially valued as twice the value of males, by decree of God

      etc etc

      So not only do you have a job refuting atheistic morality, you also have a job explaining your own moral framework.

  • JohnM

    John Grove :

    You are an idiot by every sense of the word. An internet troll. You are insincere and pathetic.

    Well, what can I say? I accept your surrender.

    As I have demonstrated, on the atheistic world view, there is no grounding for calling rape “morally wrong”.

    What’s wrong and right, is just a matter of opinion. There is no moral foundation on which to stand. 

    • Andy_Schueler

      Well, what can I say? I accept your surrender.

      To paraphrase Scott Weitzenhoffer:
      “Debating JohnM is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”

    • Andy_Schueler

      And your “moral foundation” clearly does not even provide you with the tiniest shred of honesty or basic human decency JohnM. You are a scumbag troll.

    • You obviously do not understand Kantian morality or classic utilitarianism. 

      i suggest reading this:
      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

      i refuse to do the work for you when you do ABSOLUTELY NO WORK FOR US, supplying no decent work or answering of questions.

  • [[Well, what can I say? I accept your surrender.]]

    All you have demonstrated is you are a complete troll and insincere.

    [[As I have demonstrated, on the atheistic world view, there is no grounding for calling rape “morally wrong”]]

    We have given you plenty but you are like a child who puts their fingers in their ears screaming, “I’m not listening…..la la la”. You are juvenile and empty and your low IQ (which you admitted comes through in every remark).

    [[What’s wrong and right, is just a matter of opinion. There is no moral foundation on which to stand.]]

    You don’t need a foundation to discuss normative ethics. I expected this from such an amateur. Read Shelly’s book, “Normative Ethics” sometime or take a class on moral theory.

  • JohnM

    Hehe. Well it’s been fun. Goodnight guys :)

    And sorry to create so much drama on your blog Jonathan.

    • Andy_Schueler

      Hehe. Well it’s been fun. Goodnight guys :)

      Trolling and proud of it ? Why am I not surprised… 

      And sorry to create so much drama on your blog Jonathan.

      And now trying to suck up to the blog owner so that you can keep trolling. Pathetic. 

    • [[And sorry to create so much drama on your blog Jonathan.]]

      Equates to sorry I am such a liar and insincere and cannot engage in rational discussion ………but I will continue to poison your blogs because I am a moron and its what I do. You see, I just don’t like atheists, so I will lie for Jesus and do what it takes to make myself look bad and ruin any kind of serious discussion because I am just trolling.

      Keep it up, your doing great. You are a great “witness” for Christ. Definitely bringing new lows which I had not considered.

  • In my opinion, the Christians are the ones who consider morality as
    subjective and not as objective. For example, murders and wars are or
    are not evil, it depends on who commits them and for what reason. If the
    Christian god commands a genocide then it becomes good.