Normal

I think the theist no more thinks rape is wrong because of the punishment from god then the atheist thinks rape is wrong because of the punishment from the law. If you ask "Is there ever a situation where it would be ok to rape someone?" and the answer is "No", doesn't that point to an objective moral system beyond each person's subjective stance on morals?

Wiploc

I agree. That is no basis for morality. Nor is any other justification the Christians give a basis for morality. They just throw out answers hoping not to be challenged.


[/B] [/QUOTE]

Depends what is meant by "objective." For the sake of illustration, let's switch from morals to movies. If you ask me whether Pulp Fiction is better than the an Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes sequel, or if you ask me whether Powers Booth is a better actor than Denzel Washington, I'll tell you. If you disagree with me, I'll think you're wrong.

Does that mean there is an objective standard for judging movies? Does it prove there is a god? Or does it just reveal something about how we use language?

I really do think some behaviors are better than others, just like I think some movies are better than others, but I can't justify either belief. At least the Christians can't justify their beliefs either.

They like to say that (among other lame explanations) morality is based on fear of punishment; but they don't say that because it makes sense or even because they believe it. They say it because we have been ineffectual at refuting it.

I'm against rape because it hurts women. That's all I've got; that's my whole reason. That may not be an intellectually flashy justification of morals, but it seems to me more defensible than the Christian, "I'm just doing what I'm told."
crc

njhartsh

I like this illustration a lot. I pick "c", of course; just as is the case in ethical statements, we are constantly making aesthetic statements that ignore their subjective basis.

I don't think there's any question, meanwhile, that subjective value judgments are "real." They don't (so far as we can tell) exist independently of sentient minds, but they certainly do exist. I think chocolate ice cream tastes terrible, and I think that capital punishment is entirely wrong. Anyone can disagree with me on either count, but both qualities--bad taste and immorality--are entirely real. They're just subjectively defined.

Even though taste is subjective, that doesn't mean that "there's no such thing as delicious or yucky." For the same reason, the absolutist canard you quoted, "There's nothing really wrong with rape? No behavior is really better than any other behavior?", is a total non sequitur.

- Nathan

Family Man

Actually, it is exactly the same situation. A society that is stable should last longer than a society that is not. Is a society that allows adultery, stealing, lying, and backstabbing of friends going to be more stable that one that puts moral restrictions on such behavior?

Yes, empathy is a wide-ranging phenonenon and explains how societies have developed cohesion and strength.

Normal

But that example shows how two people might disagree on which actor is better, ie. the person more inclined to horror movies would like Attack of the Killer tomatos because he perfers to be frightened as a form of entertainment, meanwhile one person would like Pulp Fiction because he prefers dark sarcasm and black humor. I'm asking: Is there any possible case in which raping someone could be considered "Right"?

If the answer is "no", then we have an objective answer to one moral question.

Wiploc

Thanks.

Massimo Pigliucci claims a non-theistic objective morality, and I'll certainly agree with him that --- once we decide human happiness is a goal --- there are objective truths about which acts tend to promote human happiness. I'm sure Christians will protest that that is not really an objective morality because you have to subjectively pick the goal of human happiness before you can objectively decide which behaviors are good according to that goal; but religious morality has the same problem.

crc

njhartsh

I ain't no Christian, and I hereby make that same protest.

It certainly does!

- Nathan

Wiploc

Yes, it is possible to think rape is good. The very phrase about a husbands rights and a wife's duties should make this clear. Then there was that Christians-raping-Muslims thing in post-Yugoslavia. There's the evolutionary argument that rape spreads your genes around. There's the thing in the bible about the Midionite virgins. There are all the medium-colored descendents of American slaves. A friend of mine argued that rape would be justified if there were only two people left and one of them wanted to continue the species. And I recall my own childhood thought that rape would be a proper response to a fraudulent accusation of rape.

Gotta go. My UPS is screeming.
crc

njhartsh

Of course!

P1: Anything Macbeth wants to do is right.
P2: MacBeth wants to rape Lady Macduff.
C: If/when Macbeth rapes Lady Macduff, he is right to do so.

Q.E.D.

Disagree with P1 all you want (I disagree with it too), but it's a possible subjective value judgment. Plenty of tyrants of one form or another have decreed for themselves the ethical right to ravish innocent people.

[Added a minute later:] As wiploc just substantiated.

- Nathan

Wiploc

... and furthermore, I often hear William Lane Craig and other Christians argue with a straight face that there isn't a thing in this world wrong with rape.
crc