i wish again to emphasise that there are at least three positions being discussed here. 1.Blanket policy (x is always a crime and punishable) 2 Conditional Ethics (x may not always be a crime due to circumstances that may mitigate the wrong or limit alternatives), 3 Enumeration of timeless and essential human ideals underlying specific acts ( x is a crime only when it is harmful, as this is the determinant of wrongness).
Moral absolutes
by Aztec 163 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Gozz
Reborn,
thanks for the situation you described. I wish us to revisit it.
Since the question is about rape, I would want to switch the situation: suppose the invaders (the drunken guys with guns) said the family would only live if the father had intercourse with the girl, his daughter? What would, according to the arguments you have posited be the lesser evil?
I'm not trying to incite anyone, and please forgive if this hurts anyone in any way, but I suppose the situation painted by Reborn does not exactly capture the essence of the discussion, the way I perceive it. I should be glad to delete this post if it's harmful in any way.
-
Big Tex
Gozz
I'm just now waking up, and realizing I am very late for a doctor's appointment, so I'll have to respond to Reborn's very well presented argument later. But I just wanted you to know that I am not offended or hurt in any way by anything presented in this thread. I think this has been a fascinating and respectful conversation. Thanks for joining us in it.
-
drwtsn32
I don't think people are understanding what is being said. No one is saying that a crime is not being committed. All we are saying is that you cannot, with 100% absolute certainty, say that any specific action (rape, murder, etc.) is always and forever wrong.
Even our legal system understands this. There is no crime where they skip the trial and go right to punishment. Extenuating circumstances happen.
No one here is saying that those guilty of crimes should not be punished!
-
Thunder Rider
Reborn,
First off, my book has nothing to do with abuse. It is a fantasy adventure novel with a hero who values his morality.
Second, your examples are while a stretch are plausable. Trouble is you seek to validate your point by placing the burden on the victim. The absolute imorality of the men who seek to rape is the issue, not wether the victim should choose to bear the scars of the rape to save other lives.
Third, you are not the only one to feel that higher education classes enlighten them to a morality above the common man who would like nothing more than to live in peace with his loved ones free from the evils of men who have traded their knowledge of right and wrong for the satisfaction of their animalistic lusts.
Lastly, I read your posts all the time and until now have usually found that you had pretty much summed things up as far as I was concerned. I am sorry if my antiquated sense of right and wrong offends you. I apologize for the "waste of skin remark" it was uncalled for. I just hate evil and wrong doing so much I some times loose my cool. That is why Sheila keeps my swords locked up.
Thunder
-
Reborn2002
I don't think people are understanding what is being said. No one is saying that a crime is not being committed. All we are saying is that you cannot, with 100% absolute certainty, say that any specific action (rape, murder, etc.) is always and forever wrong. Therefore there are no moral absolutes. [parentheses mine]
Even our legal system understands this. There is no crime where they skip the trial and go right to punishment. Extenuating circumstances happen.
No one here is saying that those guilty of crimes should not be punished!
Summed up briefly and precisely. No need for further explanation.
No problem Thunder. I apologize if anything I said offended you.
-
siegswife
Someone being coerced or forced to commit an act such as rape or murder does not make the acts of rape or murder right!
-
peacefulpete
Thats what Tex and I have been saying. Therefore that scenario does not fit the discussion. Much connotation is implied in words like "rape" and "murder" or "abuse" and so we may be arguing motives and intent to harm rather than morally neutral subjects like sex or killing. When asking if there are moral absolutes we have discovered that terminology must first be defined. "Rape" for instance is not an easy word to define but is typically suggestive of force and unwillingness. The same for "abuse". "Murder" implies a lack of socially recognized justification. The operative similarity in these terms is social disapproval. I have expanded my definition of "wrong" to include those things like killing another human (obvious harm), or allowing the harming of the few for the benefit of the many, while accepting that in extreme situations these actions may be imperative. This means good people do wrong things but good people never do harmful things with intent and motive to harm.
Perhaps this answer is more complicated than sought by the questioner. It may be that they sought a list of "Always Wrongs" so as to simplify a multicultural and changing world.
-
Francois
Suppose there was a nuclear exchange between all nations having such weapons.
Suppose there are two people left on the planet. A 60 year old man, and a 14 year old female. The female is the man's granddaughter.
The man realizes to save the human race, he must impregnate the female. He's getting old and he might die; he might die in an accident; he explains this situation to the female - that essentially they are the new Adam and Eve. The girl is unimpressed and wants nothing to do with the geezer.
The man forces himself upon the girl at what he has figured to be her most fertile time. His motivation is not selfish sexual satisfaction; his motivation is repopulation of the planet (Now should he engage in repopulation? Perhaps THAT'S the moral question here).
Is the rape and incest of this case even a moral question? Or is it something else?
What do you think?
-
pettygrudger
I think if the geezer is that old, he wouldn't really care about repopulating the earth....
And if the woman wasn't interested in raising any younguns on an empty planet, by herself, then civilization as we know it would cease to exist. Because if she's that young, and he's that old - she'd probably kick his ass!