NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=12007

Looking at these results, and taking an extremist devil's advocate viewpoint, is rape wrong?

Is so, why?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=12007

Looking at these results, and taking an extremist devil's advocate viewpoint, is rape wrong?

Is so, why?


You're kidding, right?

Yes, but only because society says it is. If it didn't then it wouldn't be. Might makes right and all that.

Because it's invading quite far beyond a person's privacy without their permission. Rape often leads to other side effects such as unwanted pregnancy, disease, injury and even death. Not to mention the mental anquishe.

Yes it's wrong because a person's right to decide what to do with his or her body is absolute, and rape is a serious infringement upon that right.

Get raped then tell us if it's wrong.

Yes, it is the forceful degredation of the human experience. No implied contract was entered into and therefore, even if absolutely no physical harm was done (I don't know if that is possible), it can be looked at as theft.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=12007

Looking at these results, and taking an extremist devil's advocate viewpoint, is rape wrong?

Is so, why?

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

All I can say is, if you don't think rape is wrong . . . bend over!

You're kidding, right?

Nope. Look at the linked poll. 71% sya there is no objective moral truth. I wondered how many really believed that?

no objective moral truth is not the same as saying that rape is right

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=12007

Looking at these results, and taking an extremist devil's advocate viewpoint, is rape wrong?

Is so, why?
Thats NOT what that poll conveys ... just that there is no OBJECTIVE truth in morality that does not make certian things right in your personal nor socal framework

Nope. Look at the linked poll. 71% sya there is no objective moral truth. I wondered how many really believed that?

Just becuase you don't believe in objective moral truth doesn't mean that you can't also believe that rape is 100% wrong.

Um... why is there even this opinion poll? it seems very random, rape is wrong becuase of social morals, like killing is wrong, unless your doing it for the right reasons, better question, when is rape right? :)

Just becuase you don't believe in objective moral truth doesn't mean that you can't also believe that rape is 100% wrong.
Exactly ... by my and my societies moral standards it is WRONG ... but that does not make it an objective truth

no objective moral truth is not the same as saying that rape is right

How so? If moral truth is relative, and my moral truth says it's ok.....

How so? If moral truth is relative, and my moral truth says it's ok.....
But it does not fall within your societies accepted framework of whats right ... it may be fine for you but it is not fine in the society you are in

Thats NOT what that poll conveys ... just that there is no OBJECTIVE truth in morality that does not make certian things right in your personal nor socal framework

But what if it is right by my personal and social moral framework?

But what if it is right by my personal and social moral framework?
By social I ment society framework

If it is right by both your societies framework and your own then it could be concidered moraly right

Of course it's wrong, but a lot of women go to far when they string men along. I think of the two sexes men are the most primal, and they definately have a lower tolerance when it comes to expecting booty and not getting it. I think it's the purpose of any rational mind to recognize these impulses and do away with them, but sadly common sense is not so common anymore.

Get raped then tell us if it's wrong.

best answer yet!

*gives the thread a less-trollish title*

But it does not fall within your societies accepted framework of whats right ... it may be fine for you but it is not fine in the society you are in

Exactly! So if it's ok for me, and societies objective moral framework is objectionable (as suggested by the OP thread's poll) why is it not ok?

Of course it's wrong, but a lot of women go to far when they string men along. I think of the two sexes men are the most primal, and they definately have a lower tolerance when it comes to expecting booty and not getting it.

I've met plenty of women who expected booty, and because the man was too drunk to get it up, were not very tolerant.

Women are just as intolerant of being deprived of sexual pleasure as any man.

As I recall, there have been cases where a woman was sentenced to rape by a court of law (often not because of a crime she committed, but because of something her male relative did).

One famous example is Mukhtaran Bibi of Meerwala, Pakistan, who was sentenced by a village's tribal council to be gang-raped as punishment for an alleged infraction committed by one of her brothers.

In the opinion of that village's tribal council, sentencing that woman to be raped was the right thing to do.

I don't think it's morally right, but those guys obviously do.


Doesn't mean I have to like it though.

Rape, in my opinion, is one of the few examples on the face of the planet of true evil. It is, without a doubt, the foulest crime in the universe. It disgusts me that anyone would support rape to any degree in any way, shape, or form.

Perhaps you have to be a female, or someone who was sexually harassed during childhood to think the way I do.

*gives the thread a less-trollish title*

Sorry, but I object. The title was certainly not trollish. If it were, I would not still be here attending it. :mad:

Exactly! So if it's ok for me, and societies objective moral framework is objectionable (as suggested by the OP thread's poll) why is it not ok?
Ok I am geting confused by terms here

Lets simplify
You are saying that if rape was alright by your standards
and rape was alright by your society standards

Would it be wrong?

Not to you ... by my morals it would be wrong but my morals have nothing to do with it

I've met plenty of women who expected booty, and because the man was too drunk to get it up, were not very tolerant.

Women are just as intolerant of being deprived of sexual pleasure as any man.

But it's nowhere near as easy for them to force themselves onto the man as a result of this. That's why men should be handled more carefully.

If you think that raping is moraly okay, then fine, just go ahead and try. But I (by "I" I mean the society) and many others will be waiting around the corner (In court) to kick your fucking rapist ass.

As I recall, there have been cases where a woman was sentenced to rape by a court of law (often not because of a crime she committed, but because of something her male relative did).

One famous example is Mukhtaran Bibi of Meerwala, Pakistan, who was sentenced by a village's tribal council to be gang-raped as punishment for an alleged infraction committed by one of her brothers.

In the opinion of that village's tribal council, sentencing that woman to be raped was the right thing to do.

I don't think it's morally right, but those guys obviously do.


Doesn't mean I have to like it though.


BINGO! So is this okay? If they thinks it's morally right, why isn't it, if all morals are realtive?

Rape, in my opinion, is one of the few examples on the face of the planet of true evil. It is, without a doubt, the foulest crime in the universe. It disgusts me that anyone would support rape to any degree in any way, shape, or form.

Perhaps you have to be a female, or someone who was sexually harassed during childhood to think the way I do.
I am male ... but I was molested from 4th to 6th grade
That does NOT make it an objective truth

I am not saying I like it ... I am NOT EVEN FUCKING SAYING IT IS RIGHT
I am saying it is not an objective across the board truth so it cant be wrong 100 percent of the time by certian moral standards

I dont think people understand the difference

As I recall, there have been cases where a woman was sentenced to rape by a court of law (often not because of a crime she committed, but because of something her male relative did).

One famous example is Mukhtaran Bibi of Meerwala, Pakistan, who was sentenced by a village's tribal council to be gang-raped as punishment for an alleged infraction committed by one of her brothers.

In the opinion of that village's tribal council, sentencing that woman to be raped was the right thing to do.

I don't think it's morally right, but those guys obviously do.


Doesn't mean I have to like it though.

That is not saying that they think rape is right, they ordered the rape as a punishment, so even though they are already have implied they accept rape, they are not saying that it is something that should happen to everyone.

And if we were to go by some standards, apparently some cultures find torture morally acceptable. This is no more true than rape being morally acceptable.

i dont like the word rape

i prefer the term surprise sex -

- surprises are fun right?!... like a birthday party... surprise!

Are you trying to establish such a thing as "objective moral truth"? Because morality will never be objective. Ever. It's a contradiction in terms.

BINGO! So is this okay? If they thinks it's morally right, why isn't it, if all morals are realtive?
According to the morality of their culture it's ok. According to the morality of our culture it's terrible. That's why we have cultural imperialism. So we can spread our supperior western culture to the barbaric tribes who live like animals.

shit, voted wrong

Our Society (in fact, 99.9% of all Societys) punish raping
most of the "normal" people say that rape is wrong

even if i dont follow every law, i think some laws are the fundament of every society (murder, rape, steal)

BINGO! So is this okay? If they thinks it's morally right, why isn't it, if all morals are realtive?

I'm not here to argue the point one way or the other. All I wanted to do was point that situation out, since no one had taken it into consideration.

To me it is not morally right under any circumstance. I can recognize that they do, but I am not willing to accept that their judgement is correct.

shit, voted wrong

Our Society (in fact, 99.9% of all Societys) punish raping
most of the "normal" people say that rape is wrong

even if i dont follow every law, i think some laws are the fundament of every society (murder, rape, steal)
Those ethics also are found in certain gregarious non-human animals. This leads me to beleive that morality is in part genetically wired into us.

Ok I am geting confused by terms here

Lets simplify
You are saying that if rape was alright by your standards
and rape was alright by your society standards

Would it be wrong?

Not to you ... by my morals it would be wrong but my morals have nothing to do with it

Exactly. If it's ok by me, and there are no universal objective moral standards, what makes it wrong to you if I do it?

for example: I belong to one of the Pakistani tribal mentioned. I live in the US, and the tribal council says rape Ms X, who also lives in the US, as a punishment. I do so. My moral view says it's okay. Your's says it's not. Do my societal standards make it okay. What if Ms X does not object?

BINGO! So is this okay? If they thinks it's morally right, why isn't it, if all morals are realtive?
It's morally right to them. It's not morally right to us. That's relativism.

I'd say they're wrong but that's just my opinion. Theirs could be as right as mine. I'm just too blind to understand their culture.

Exactly. If it's ok by me, and there are no universal objective moral standards, what makes it wrong to you if I do it?

for example: I belong to one of the Pakistani tribal mentioned. I live in the US, and the tribal council says rape Ms X, who also lives in the US, as a punishment. I do so. My moral view says it's okay. Your's says it's not. Do my societal standards make it okay. What if Ms X does not object?
You must respect the morality of the culture that surrounds you. If you live in the US, and you rape someone, the US government will do all it can to put you away for a very long time.

Oh, and if Ms X doesn't object is it still rape? Assuming she's not a minor or mentally retarded of course.

Those ethics also are found in certain gregarious non-human animals. This leads me to beleive that morality is in part genetically wired into us.

How did you vote here?

(Interesting to note that the vote there has changed significantly...)

Now I really am off to bed - stayed up an hour extra beyond when I shopulkd have for this one...

I can't believe that some people said that rape is "100 OK." That's kinda shocking.
And as to whoever said something about rape being wrong because society dictates it to be so... that's just ridiculous. You have a conscience that is uninfluenced by society. You have a rational brain* that can detect (or at least estimate) the effect an action is going to have on another human. Use them both and you'll get by being a "nice person."
There. I didn't even bring God into it (didn't want to piss off the haters).

*Sorry if ya don't.

I am male ... but I was molested from 4th to 6th grade
That does NOT make it an objective truth

I am not saying I like it ... I am NOT EVEN FUCKING SAYING IT IS RIGHT
I am saying it is not an objective across the board truth so it cant be wrong 100 percent of the time by certian moral standards

I dont think people understand the difference
I wasn't trying to single anybody out. I was just stating my opinion, which is: RAPE IS NEVER MORALLY RIGHT, OR EVEN REMOTELY ACCEPTABLE. And yes, it does disgust me that anyone could state that it is morally right or acceptable in any way, shape, or form. In my opinion, there is no justification in any situation for rape. That's it.

How did you vote here?

(Interesting to note that the vote there has changed significantly...)

Now I really am off to bed - stayed up an hour extra beyond when I shopulkd have for this one...
I voted 100% wrong. I can't see any situation under which rape could be acceptable.

Nope. Look at the linked poll. 71% sya there is no objective moral truth. I wondered how many really believed that?

That has nothing to do with the question you asked. There is absolutely nothing preventing someone from having the subjective opinion that rape is 100% wrong all the time... and recognizing that that is their subjective opinion.

Exactly. If it's ok by me, and there are no universal objective moral standards, what makes it wrong to you if I do it?

for example: I belong to one of the Pakistani tribal mentioned. I live in the US, and the tribal council says rape Ms X, who also lives in the US, as a punishment. I do so. My moral view says it's okay. Your's says it's not. Do my societal standards make it okay. What if Ms X does not object?


It's wrong for you to do so, because you live in the US where it is wrong. If you were in pakistan it would be fine - if that really is the case.

Personal morals are irrelevent, anyone who believes that their personal morality should supercede behavior mandated by society's morals is probably a sociopath. (Like religious people or PETA for example).

Even within society, morality changes massively over time. The age of consent was only introduced to english society somtime in the 17th century I believe, and even then it was set at ten years old. Does that mean all the english in the past were statutory rapists? Of course not.

Acceptable (moral behavior) changes with the circumstances.

Of course it's wrong, but a lot of women go to far when they string men along. I think of the two sexes men are the most primal, and they definately have a lower tolerance when it comes to expecting booty and not getting it. And, becasue of the sexist-ness of modern society, women are encouraged to care more about their looks than getting stronger, and so are unable to defend themselves against men - who are ridiculed for not being strong.

Originally Posted by Daistallia 2104
Exactly. If it's ok by me, and there are no universal objective moral standards, what makes it wrong to you if I do it?

for example: I belong to one of the Pakistani tribal mentioned. I live in the US, and the tribal council says rape Ms X, who also lives in the US, as a punishment. I do so. My moral view says it's okay. Your's says it's not. Do my societal standards make it okay.


"What if Ms X does not object"

If Ms X does object to it, is it rape anymore?

It's wrong for you to do so, because you live in the US where it is wrong.

Actually... it's illegal for him to do so because he lives in the United States. 'Illegal' does not equal 'Wrong'.

"Wrong" (as concerns behaviour) is a subjective personal moral judgement. "Illegal" is an objective codified legal standard.

You may have already realized that, but people confusing the two is a pet peeve of mine.

Originally Posted by Daistallia 2104
Exactly. If it's ok by me, and there are no universal objective moral standards, what makes it wrong to you if I do it?

for example: I belong to one of the Pakistani tribal mentioned. I live in the US, and the tribal council says rape Ms X, who also lives in the US, as a punishment. I do so. My moral view says it's okay. Your's says it's not. Do my societal standards make it okay.


"What if Ms X does not object"

If Ms X does object to it, is it rape anymore?
No, if she does not object, it's no longer rape.

Rape: definition (http://www.elook.org/dictionary/rape.html)

Actually... it's illegal for him to do so because he lives in the United States. 'Illegal' does not equal 'Wrong'.

"Wrong" (as concerns behaviour) is a subjective personal moral judgement. "Illegal" is an objective codified legal standard.

You may have already realized that, but people confusing the two is a pet peeve of mine.

Yeah, it is also "wrong" in the US. Because that is our accepted societal morality.

I can go to Japan and buy used panties from a middle school girl. It's not wrong, and not illegal there. A japanese businessman buying used panties from a middle school girl in the US probably wouldn't be breaking any laws that I can think of, but it would certianly be "wrong".

What's right and wrong is defined by the group, not the individual.

Actually... it's illegal for him to do so because he lives in the United States. 'Illegal' does not equal 'Wrong'.

"Wrong" (as concerns behaviour) is a subjective personal moral judgement. "Illegal" is an objective codified legal standard.

You may have already realized that, but people confusing the two is a pet peeve of mine.
Our laws are based indirectly on moral judgements. Our laws protect our rights. Those rights are based on the moral judgement that humans are entitled to do certain things, like control the fate of their own bodies. Rape infringes on that right.

i dont like the word rape

i prefer the term surprise sex -

- surprises are fun right?!... like a birthday party... surprise!

I realize how terribly wrong that is, but I still can't stop laughing!

Anyways, before you continue using the Pakistani thing as an example, read the whole story here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukhtaran_Bibi) Scroll down some and you'll see that the local imam condemned the rape. And by the description of the story, it seems as though many of the Mastoi were not involved and many of them would probably have been opposed to the "sentence." Good to know the rapists were sentenced to death though, however little that consolation is...

rape cant be wrong ALL the time, most of the time mebbe but not all the time

Yeah, it is also "wrong" in the US. Because that is our accepted societal morality.

It is only "wrong" to a majority of individuals in the U.S.

It is not simply "wrong in the U.S." Morals don't work that way.

I can go to Japan and buy used panties from a middle school girl. It's not wrong, and not illegal there.

Again, "illegal" and "wrong" are two very different things. "Wrong" is not something that is a function of geography! It is a function of the perosn evaluating the act. It doesn't matter WHERE you are if a person sees you doing something they dissaprove of as far as they're concerned you did something wrong.

What is ILLEGAL is defined by the group. Why do you think laws exist in the first place? Because the group CAN'T define "wrong", it's a bloody subjective property! So we needed an objective one to impose common standards of behaviour on society. To a significant extent those standards grew out of the moral opinions of the majority... but they're still a very different thing.

rape cant be wrong ALL the time, most of the time mebbe but not all the time
Ask yourself when it would be OK. I couldn't come up with any example, so I voted 100% wrong.

If you think rape is anything but 100% wrong why dont you venture over to a rape clinic and say that to someone...someone with a blunt object if possible.

rape cant be wrong ALL the time, most of the time mebbe but not all the time

when in the hell would it be right???

Why is this even a question?

It is only "wrong" to a majority of individuals in the U.S.

It is not simply "wrong in the U.S." Morals don't work that way.



Again, "illegal" and "wrong" are two very different things. "Wrong" is not something that is a function of geography! It is a function of the perosn evaluating the act. It doesn't matter WHERE you are if a person sees you doing something they dissaprove of as far as they're concerned you did something wrong.

What is ILLEGAL is defined by the group. Why do you think laws exist in the first place? Because the group CAN'T define "wrong", it's a bloody subjective property! So we needed an objective one to impose common standards of behaviour on society. To a significant extent those standards grew out of the moral opinions of the majority... but they're still a very different thing.

Read what I wrote. You can by used schoolgirl panties in the US, it's not illegal, but arguably wrong.

Right and wrong are defined by the group, not the individual. Obviously. Otherwise, nothing could ever be wrong, because people could just claim that they were acting as they thought 'right'. Something about normative values I suppose.

Or look at it the other way, in India, the cast system - or at least the odious parts of it - have been made illegal. Yet many parts of india still view it as right or correct.

I am well aware of the difference between immoral and illegal. However, it does not change the fact that both are defined by the group, and not the individual.

Another example is NAMBLA, there actions are completely legal. In fact protected by law. Nevertheless, they are also judged immoral. Under your system, they are doing nothing wrong (immoral), because they subjectively believe that they are correct. It does not change the fact, that in the eyes of society they are immoral perverts.

What is moral behavior is decided by the group, not by the individual.

I've given it more thought, and I think I know when it might be ok. It's generally agreed that rape is one of the most degrading things you can do to someone. How can you punish a rapist with a few years in jail, while the rapee (is that a word?) is, in some cases, emotionally destroyed for life. So, I think that the best punishment for rape is rape. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. And Hitler, too. If he hadn't killed himself, that should have been part one of his punishment.

Why is this even a question?

Someone was under the serious misconception that if you don't think morality is an objective property then you can't ever consider anything to be 100% wrong... and they thought they were making some kind of clever point.

I've given it more thought, and I think I know when it might be ok. It's generally agreed that rape is one of the most degrading things you can do to someone. How can you punish a rapist with a few years in jail, while the rapee (is that a word?) is, in some cases, emotionally destroyed for life. So, I think that the best punishment for rape is rape. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. And Hitler, too. If he hadn't killed himself, that should have been part one of his punishment.
I don't think that's "right" either. Rape is never "right" no matter who the victim is.

I don't think that's "right" either. Rape is never "right" no matter who the victim is.
Well, what do you think is an appropriate punishment for rapists?

Well, what do you think is an appropriate punishment for rapists?
Slow, painful torture. If you want me to go into more detail, I can.

Read what I wrote. You can by used schoolgirl panties in the US, it's not illegal, but arguably wrong.

I did read what you wrote.

Right and wrong are defined by the group, not the individual.

No, they aren't. Any more than what is beautiful or ugly is defined by the group. It's a freaking subjective property. It is an evaluation BY THE INDIVIDUAL. Just because a majority of people CONSIDER something beautiful doesn't mean it is and if you disagree you're incorrect because you're in opposition to the group.

Same applies for morality.

Obviously. Otherwise, nothing could ever be wrong,

"Obviously, otherwise nothing could ever be beautiful, because someone could claim anything was ugly..."

Detect the flaw in your reasoning?

because people could just claim that they were acting as they thought 'right'. Something about normative values I suppose.

And? Who cares? That's why we have laws!.

Or look at it the other way, in India, the cast system - or at least the odious parts of it - have been made illegal. Yet many parts of india still view it as right or correct.

Exactly.

Another example is NAMBLA, there actions are completely legal. In fact protected by law. Nevertheless, they are also judged immoral. Under your system, they are doing nothing wrong (immoral), because they subjectively believe that they are correct.

No, they are doing something wrong in my judgement because that is what I evaluate their actions to be. That's what a moral judgement IS.

Get raped then tell us if it's wrong.

My point in its entirity.

Slow, painful torture. If you want me to go into more detail, I can.

Don't forget chemical castration too.

It is wrong. It hurts those who it is commited against as they have no say in about what happens to them. Nuff said.

I agree with the general concensus of this thread- the it's all a matter of perspective.

The rapist obviously doesn't think it's wrong
the rapee (I chose not to use the word victim, to avoid bias) probably does
The US government (officially) does
And probably about 90% of the people in the world agree that's it's wrong.

So does that make it right or wrong?
The obvious answer is no.

Of course all that has nothing to do with how we as individuals respond to this poll, and I personally do think that rape is wrong.

Yes it's wrong because a person's right to decide what to do with his or her body is absolute, and rape is a serious infringement upon that right.
Whoa, boy. Where does that right come from?

note also that the creator of this thread also knows that the matter is subjective, as there is no point to running a poll on something that isn't based on opinion.

Whoa, boy. Where does that right come from?
A moral decision that our culture has made. We see it as immoral to deprive humans of certain rights, like the right to decide not to have sex with someone.

No, they aren't. Any more than what is beautiful or ugly is defined by the group. It's a freaking subjective property. It is an evaluation BY THE INDIVIDUAL. Just because a majority of people CONSIDER something beautiful doesn't mean it is and if you disagree you're incorrect because you're in opposition to the group.

Same applies for morality.

It's fairly obvious that standards of beauty and questions of taste are dictated by society, not by a few on the fringe with their own opinions. Beauty, like morality, comes from normative values, and we get those from the group. You might find Andrea Dworkin to be the worlds most attractive woman. This doesn't change the fact that in the words of the London Book Review that she was, "fat and ugly."

"Obviously, otherwise nothing could ever be beautiful, because someone could claim anything was ugly..."

Detect the flaw in your reasoning?

That's your reasoning, not mine.

I know when things are beautiful. I know this because I have an aesthetic sense which is mediated by the normative values of my society. Which is why I like to listen to the beatles, but find chinese music a tuneless noise.


And? Who cares? That's why we have laws!.

Which would require almost every aspect of society to be goverened by laws. Much of our interaction is not. However, it is governed by a moral code. In other words, we behave in a certain way towards each other because we feel it is expected and right, i.e. morally. This moral code is derived from the attitudes of our society, not by our particular whim or first prinicples.

No, they are doing something wrong in my judgement because that is what I evaluate their actions to be. That's what a moral judgement IS.

So to you, morality is merely a personal preference and no more? Why bother even thinking about it then. Anything and everything can be moral or immoral.

I don't think you recognize that your own personal moral choices are goverened by the group you are part of. You seem to think that because you personally feel that it is wrong, that is the end of the argument. But where did you get your ethical framework? From society. You didn't just make it up on your own. No-one does.

That doesn't mean that such judgments are objective. It is still a subjective judgment but it is the subjective judgment of society as a whole, not the individual. This is why we still feel perfectly comfortable condemning people for certain actions or attitudes which, while are not illegal, we find deplorable.

Unless of course you never condemn or judge anyone for anything they do or say unless they have broken a law.

I agree with the general concensus of this thread- the it's all a matter of perspective.

The rapist obviously doesn't think it's wrong
the rapee (I chose not to use the word victim, to avoid bias) probably does
The US government (officially) does
And probably about 90% of the people in the world agree that's it's wrong.

So does that make it right or wrong?
The obvious answer is no.

Of course all that has nothing to do with how we as individuals respond to this poll, and I personally do think that rape is wrong.

No, the "rapee" definately does. Otherwise its not rape, its consensual sex.

90% of the people in the world think that the sky is blue. Does 10% of the world being colourblind and thinking the sky is grey prevent it from being blue? No more than 10% of the world failing to see just what an effect on someone's life being raped has. If you remove control of somebody over themselves, you rob them of something, the most valuble thing they have, and to do it in such an intimate way is one of the most horific crimes which can be commited, as they have to live with the memory of that happening to them.

No, the "rapee" definately does. Otherwise its not rape, its consensual sex.

If a rapist is raped does s/he all of a sudden think rape is wrong? maybe... maybe not...

edit: on second thought, knowing the repeat offense rates of released sex offenders and knowing that rape is a common occurance in prison, I would have to change my answer to this question to "definately not".


90% of the people in the world think that the sky is blue. Does 10% of the world being colourblind and thinking the sky is grey prevent it from being blue?


This is irrelevent because it is fact based. However there could be better examples, as the "fact" that the sky is blue can be argued.


No more than 10% of the world failing to see just what an effect on someone's life being raped has.


This is a matter of opinion, by definition- there is no right or wrong to it.


If you remove control of somebody over themselves, you rob them of something, the most valuble thing they have,



Interesting thought. Is prostitution legal where you live?

and to do it in such an intimate way is one of the most horific crimes which can be commited, as they have to live with the memory of that happening to them.

in your opinion.

It's fairly obvious that standards of beauty and questions of taste are dictated by society, not by a few on the fringe with their own opinions.

Who exactly said anything about standards of such things? We're talking about the actual property itself.

We're not talking about standards of morality because that wasn't the original question. We're talking about whether something IS moral or immoral.

Beauty, like morality, comes from normative values, and we get those from the group.

Beauty, like morals, is in the eye of the beholder. And no, we don't get those from the group. If we did everyone IN the group would have the same bloody standard!

The views of the group can have a developmental influence, but that's it.

You might find Andrea Dworkin to be the worlds most attractive woman. This doesn't change the fact that in the words of the London Book Review that she was, "fat and ugly."

No, it wouldn'tchange that they SAID that. Nor would it change that that was THEIR opinion.

I know when things are beautiful.

You know when you personally consider something to be beautiful.

That doesn't MAKE it beautiful. You're treating beauty and morality as if they're objective properties AND dependent on the opinions of a group of people AT THE SAME TIME!

Which would require almost every aspect of society to be goverened by laws.

No, it wouldn't. It requires those aspects of society that are deemed too important to leave unregulated to be governed by laws.

Much of our interaction is not. However, it is governed by a moral code.

No kidding! It's just not the SAME moral code person to person!

In other words, we behave in a certain way towards each other because we feel it is expected and right, i.e. morally. This moral code is derived from the attitudes of our society, not by our particular whim or first prinicples.

If that was true then moral codes among all members of a society would be homogenous because they all came from and were dependent on the same source and not on the individual.

This is demonstrated to be untrue after a 5 second cursory scan of society.

Therefore you are wrong.

I rest my case.

Unless of course you never condemn or judge anyone for anything they do or say unless they have broken a law.

:headbang:
You say you understand the difference between laws and morals... and then you go and make a statement like that...

I think that I have to agree with this: :headbang:

Someone try?
Be prepared to die.

Who exactly said anything about standards of such things? We're talking about the actual property itself.

We're not talking about standards of morality because that wasn't the original question. We're talking about whether something IS moral or immoral.

Whether or not something is moral or immoral is set by the STANDARDS of morality. If there are no standards, then moral=immoral, and the whole idea of morals become meaningless.


Beauty, like morals, is in the eye of the beholder. And no, we don't get those from the group. If we did everyone IN the group would have the same bloody standard!

The views of the group can have a developmental influence, but that's it.

Now that is just silly. People can't even agree over the meaning of legal codes. Of course everyone is going to have a slightly different opinion of what morality actually is, nevertheless, they derive that sense of what morality actually is from the normative values of the group they identify with.

No, it wouldn'tchange that they SAID that. Nor would it change that that was THEIR opinion.

Or that it was true, which was my point.

You know when you personally consider something to be beautiful.

That doesn't MAKE it beautiful. You're treating beauty and morality as if they're objective properties AND dependent on the opinions of a group of people AT THE SAME TIME!

I know when something is beautiful, because I have an aesthetic sense which is goverened by standards set by the group I identify which. Thus I can judge music. Now look at it from the other side. All chinese music is just noise to me, and I cannot tell good chinese music from bad. Obviously there is such a thing, else we could all write chinese music, but I am unable to tell you what it is. This is because the aesthetic standards of the group I identify with leave me completely unable to indentify what it should sound like.

On the other hand, I can tell the difference between Bob Dylan, and some clown just fucking around with a guitar. Again this is because the aesthetic sense I have inhereted from my group equips me to make that decision. Had I been raised in china five hundred years ago, I would not be so equiped, and Bob Dylan, and some clown would probably seem the same to me.

And just like aesthetic merit, morality is governed by these normative values.

No, it wouldn't. It requires those aspects of society that are deemed too important to leave unregulated to be governed by laws.


A quick glance at any legal code will dispense with that notion. Sunday closing for example.


No kidding! It's just not the SAME moral code person to person!

Derived from a personal understanding of group morality. And ulitmately arbitrated by the group.

If that was true then moral codes among all members of a society would be homogenous because they all came from and were dependent on the same source and not on the individual.

This is demonstrated to be untrue after a 5 second cursory scan of society.

Therefore you are wrong.

I rest my case.

If society was homogenous, which it isn't. People migrate, groups mix, new ideas arise with new discoveries.

So there is always going to be some small variation, especially around the less contenious issues. And where society is homogenous, there is tremendous consensus. Look at japan before perry opened it to the West. A cursory glance of it's history shows that its policy of isolation and stasis, has arrived at an almost perfect uniformity of the individual conception of morals, gained from society's understanding.


:headbang:
You say you understand the difference between laws and morals... and then you go and make a statement like that...

You are a legal positivist. That is only one view of the law - and one that is falling into increasing disfavor. There are many others. Just because I don't share your conception of jurisprudence doesn't mean I don't understand the difference between law and morals.

Ok, I couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread, but here is my response to the thread and the overall theme whether morals are relative or constant.

First of all, I'd like us all to go visit a time when mainstream culture found rape to be acceptable (I bet you're saying to yourself "Nonsense, such a time never existed," but let me assure you it did). This time was less than a century ago, when a man legally owned his wife. At marriage the woman became the property of her husband. A man was therefore allowed to exersize his "marital rights" at any time he pleased. Whether a woman was interested or not, a man could force himself upon his wife, and this was deemed acceptable behavior since a "proper" woman would never willingly participate in a sexual act in the first place.

In this case, you have marital rape occuring without anybody frowning upon it. Society says its a-ok, and individually alot of people thought it was "just the way things are". This type of rape can be just as physically and emotionally damaging, and yet nobody had ever been punished for such a thing until the later portion of the 20th century.

Today if a man forces himself upon his wife without consent, the women can provide physical evidence in a court of law, and the bastard can be taken away. But where were these morals in the 19th century?

I guess that means our morals have developed over time, and haven't stayed constant. Go figure. Any other "moral truths" you'd like to discuss?

No, the "rapee" definately does. Otherwise its not rape, its consensual sex.


Not at all. I don't want to pay taxes. However, I don't think that taxes are immoral.
It is quite possible for a person to live in a culture were forced sex is not considered immoral but still not want to have sex.
Such a person would consider rape to be much like taxes, something unpleasent that one must endure.

Whether or not something is moral or immoral is set by the STANDARDS of morality. If there are no standards, then moral=immoral, and the whole idea of morals become meaningless.

No, it doesn't. The statement "X is immoral" equals "I look upon 'X' with strong disfavor"

You don't need a group standard to make that statement and to have it be meaningful!

Now that is just silly. People can't even agree over the meaning of legal codes. Of course everyone is going to have a slightly different opinion of what morality actually is,

Ahem... "slightly different"?

How about polar opposite? Or were you really under the impression that every member of a society possessed a moral framework that differed in only minor details from anyone else in that society?

Or that it was true, which was my point.

It's true that it's their opinion and nothing more.

I know when something is beautiful, because I have an aesthetic sense which is goverened by standards set by the group I identify which.

And the group also decided you would identify with them in the first place I suppose....

Guess which came first, your identification with them and their sense of aesthetics or their influence ON your sense of aesthetics?

Thus I can judge music. Now look at it from the other side. All chinese music is just noise to me, and I cannot tell good chinese music from bad. Obviously there is such a thing, else we could all write chinese music,

You really have serious difficulty with the meaning of "subjective" don't you?

No, there is NOT such a thing as "good chinese music". There is only "chinese music certain people consider to be good".

A quick glance at any legal code will dispense with that notion. Sunday closing for example.

Glancing... not dispelled. A society decided enforcing a day of rest was important enough to them to construct a legal framework governing it.

What's your point?

If society was homogenous, which it isn't.

That's what I just said.

People migrate, groups mix, new ideas arise with new discoveries.

Uh-huh... and they do so in some kind of simultaneous group metamorphasis of their collective moral standards and not as a result of individuals personally reassessing their personal moral frameworks... :rolleyes:

So there is always going to be some small variation, especially around the less contenious issues. And where society is homogenous, there is tremendous consensus. Look at japan before perry opened it to the West. A cursory glance of it's history shows that its policy of isolation and stasis, has arrived at an almost perfect uniformity of the individual conception of morals, gained from society's understanding.

What a ridiculous claim. So there was almost pefectly no behaviour occuring in Japan which anyone considered immoral because everyone had the same morality?

You are a legal positivist. That is only one view of the law - and one that is falling into increasing disfavor. There are many others. Just because I don't share your conception of jurisprudence doesn't mean I don't understand the difference between law and morals.

You just suggested that given my explanation I couldn't make a moral judgement independent of a legal code... so yes, I think that does mean you don't understand the difference between laws and morals.

Such a person would consider rape to be much like taxes, something unpleasent that one must endure.

Like Paris Hilton.
*shudder*

Exactly ... by my and my societies moral standards it is WRONG ... but that does not make it an objective truth

UT, wouldn't that mean that it isn't 100% wrong? What your saying is, that it is only 100% wrong in our society. IMO it is 100% wrong irrespective of any society, thus making it an objective moral truth.

No, it doesn't. The statement "X is immoral" equals "I look upon 'X' with strong disfavor"

I think you and I have a different conceptions of morals. You are an amoralist, in the sense that it is all perfectly arbitrary, I am not. We have a fundamental disagreement about what is actually encompassed by morals.

The statement "X is immoral" does not equal I look upon "'X' with disfavor."

I look upon Russia with disfavor, I don't think that it is immoral per se.

I look upon Stalinism as immoral. There is a huge difference.

You don't need a group standard to make that statement and to have it be meaningful!

Yes, you do. You have heard the term "moral authority". Where do you think that authority comes from.



Ahem... "slightly different"?

How about polar opposite? Or were you really under the impression that every member of a society possessed a moral framework that differed in only minor details from anyone else in that society?

No, that's not my impression, that's how society works. That's why society is functioning. Are you really under the impression that what you consider to be life and death matters of high drama and dispute within the english-speaking world are actually polar opposites in peoples moral frameworks? Your being silly, and dramatic. Within the US, the overwhelming majority of people accept the same moral framework, with only slight differences. Those who don't get locked up. Cry all you want about things like abortion, they are not tearing society apart, and constitute only a minor variation. The big things, we are all pretty much of one mind upon. Like baby-raping. (Although there are parts of the world where that is perfectly acceptable).


It's true that it's their opinion and nothing more.

You know a 'fact' is only a consensus of opinion, don't you? So it is true.


And the group also decided you would identify with them in the first place I suppose....

Guess which came first, your identification with them and their sense of aesthetics or their influence ON your sense of aesthetics?

We are social animals, get over it. You are mostly influenced by those around you.


You really have serious difficulty with the meaning of "subjective" don't you?

No, but you do. It doesn't mean "personal judgment" in this sense you know. More like its the characteristic of being percieved. All I am saying is that morality is 'percieved' by society, not by the individual. Moral codes are the consensus of the group, not the individual. Why in the hell do you think they call it acceptable behavior? Who do you think is doing the accepting. Not the individual, the group, society, whatever you want to call it.



No, there is NOT such a thing as "good chinese music". There is only "chinese music certain people consider to be good".

Why can't everyone make good chinese music then? There is such a thing as good chinese music. Just like there is the bad music of some retard fucking around with a guitar.


Glancing... not dispelled. A society decided enforcing a day of rest was important enough to them to construct a legal framework governing it.

Divorce laws? Marriage laws? Censorship? Obsenity laws? Anti-sodomy laws?
Charitable deductions for taxes? Government grants? Indecent exposure? It's more than glancing.



Uh-huh... and they do so in some kind of simultaneous group metamorphasis of their collective moral standards and not as a result of individuals personally reassessing their personal moral frameworks... :rolleyes:

No, it depends upon the pattern of mixing. Plus, we are used to altering our own internal framework about almost everything as the general tone of society changes. Some of the most ardent millitarists in 1914, became dedicated pacifists in the 20s, along with the rest of western Europe.



What a ridiculous claim. So there was almost pefectly no behaviour occuring in Japan which anyone considered immoral because everyone had the same morality?

I never said there was no immoral behavior. Just that everyone knew what it was. In other words, there was no dispute over what was immoral and what was not.


You just suggested that given my explanation I couldn't make a moral judgement independent of a legal code... so yes, I think that does mean you don't understand the difference between laws and morals.

I didn't say you couldn't, I said you shouldn't. Just like you shouldn't criticize anyone for their choice of ice-cream. (Or at least view the choice as wrong).

I would say rape is pretty much wrong. I don't really believe in an objective moral truth independent of humanity, but I do think that some things are just wrong.

I think you and I have a different conceptions of morals. You are an amoralist, in the sense that it is all perfectly arbitrary,

No, I am not an amoralist, and no I do not think it is all perfectly arbitrary.

The statement "X is immoral" does not equal I look upon "'X' with disfavor."

Yes, it does. Not of course for every possible meaning of "disfavor".

Yes, you do. You have heard the term "moral authority". Where do you think that authority comes from.

Yes, I have heard the term "moral authority". And the authority comes from those individuals who choose for themselves to accept that another person's judgement in matters of morality is sufficiently compatible with their position that they will trust it and adopt it as their own.

No, that's not my impression, that's how society works. That's why society is functioning. Are you really under the impression that what you consider to be life and death matters of high drama and dispute within the english-speaking world are actually polar opposites in peoples moral frameworks? Your being silly, and dramatic. Within the US, the overwhelming majority of people accept the same moral framework, with only slight differences.

Slight differences like "abortion is a fundamental right" vs. "Abortion is murder and a modern genocide"?

Those who don't get locked up.

Really? Which of the above groups of MILLIONS is locked up for it?

Cry all you want about things like abortion, they are not tearing society apart, and constitute only a minor variation.

Yeah, those positions look like a minor variation on each other to me.. and it sure doesn't count as one of the "big issues"... :rolleyes:

You know a 'fact' is only a consensus of opinion, don't you? So it is true.

Oh for the love of whatever you think is holy... are you kidding?

So a few centuries ago it was a fact that the earth was the center of the universe and everything else revolved around it? Because THAT was the consensus.

I wonder exactly when the paths followed by all interstellar bodies suddenly adjusted themselves to the modern model. I mean... was it when 50%+1 of the people on earth thought that was how it was or did it take like a 2/3rds majority or something to alter the dynamics of the motion of entire galaxies...?

I wonder if I could start a campaign to convince people of the truth of the existence of beautiful naked female nymphomaniacs living in an alternate dimension accessible through a gateway in my closet and get enough people accepting that that it becomes a fact... then take a little vacation...

We are social animals, get over it. You are mostly influenced by those around you.

INFLUENCED by those around you. Yes.

Have your morals DETERMINED by those aruond you. No.

No, but you do. It doesn't mean "personal judgment" in this sense you know. More like its the characteristic of being percieved.

That IS the sense I was talking about!

All I am saying is that morality is 'percieved' by society, not by the individual.

And does society "perceive" morality with society's big collective hive mind?

In the world I live in, individuals do the perceiving because society is an ABSTRACTION. It doesn't have the faculties to perceive things!

Moral codes are the consensus of the group, not the individual.

No, morals codes are the judgements of the individual... that's why they're DIFFERENT individual to individual!

Why in the hell do you think they call it acceptable behavior?

Why the hell do you think? We take a big collection of individuals. We find out what their individual opinions on the acceptability of any given matter are. IF (great big giant can't-stress-it-enough IF) on a given matter a LARGE majority are in agreement as to a specific action's acceptability that gets called "acceptable" behaviour... but it's STILL only referring to what is acceptable to the MAJORITY... NOT what is acceptable to the entire freaking society!

Who do you think is doing the accepting. Not the individual, the group, society, whatever you want to call it.

The group OF INDIVIDUALS.

Why can't everyone make good chinese music then?

Are you joking? Did I not just finish saying there's no such thing as "good chinese music"? That there's only "chinese music some people consider to be good"?

And your response is to ask me why everyone can't make something I just said doesn't freaking exist?

There is such a thing as good chinese music. Just like there is the bad music of some retard fucking around with a guitar.

If the retard fucking around with the guitar likes it it's good music to him.

Divorce laws? Marriage laws? Censorship? Obsenity laws? Anti-sodomy laws? Charitable deductions for taxes? Government grants? Indecent exposure? It's more than glancing.

Fine... it's glaring... AND STILL NOT SEEING YOUR POINT. My previous response can be repeated in identical form for this little list of yours.

I never said there was no immoral behavior. Just that everyone knew what it was. In other words, there was no dispute over what was immoral and what was not.

If you think there was EVER a society on the face of this planet that didn't have significant internal disputes over what did and did not constitute moral behaviour you are living in an impressive fantasy world all your own.

I didn't say you couldn't, I said you shouldn't.

Which is just as nonsensical. I shouldn't MORALLY criticise an action unless it is ILLEGAL? On what bizarre basis did you come to that conclusion?

I would say rape is pretty much wrong. I don't really believe in an objective moral truth independent of humanity, but I do think that some things are just wrong.

So what are those things that are just wrong, if not objective moral truths?

I clicked 90%, although I really wanted to click 100%. There is absolutely no reason for a woman to have sex if she doesnt want to (except to continue humanity, if she was the last woman on earth or something. But the probablity of that is closer to .0000001%, not 10%.)

Of course rape is wrong.
It is forcing someone to take something they obviously don't want to be done to them. It's wrong because in most cases it leaves the victim devestated and traumatised.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out why it is wrong.

ok, I voted that it is 100% wrong.

I believe things can be wrong, but we still do them anyway.

I believe it is wrong to yell at my girlfriend, if I'm unjustified. I still do it occasionally. I'm not perfect. Doesn't make what I did right, even if that's just my subjective opinion.

Now, as for rape, I believe it's 100% wrong. But, to give the other argument ammunition, the historically most successful way for an invading army to make peace with their newly conquered population is to rape the women.
It's easy to point at the people who are different to you and say "evil invaders". It's much harder to point at your children and say "evil invaders".
Much much harder three generations along, when there is a lot of mixed blood.
Obviously, at some point the rape has to stop, or you get an "evil opressors" mentality of "us vs them", but if there is initial raping during the conquest, then no raping during the occupation....historically....it leads to a more peaceful resolution.

Having said that, I still believe that each rape is a 100% wrong act. But you wanted a case where rape might be right. If it saves lives, could you argue it's the right thing to do?

Rape is always wrong. Always. I was thinking about answering 90%, but I cannot think of a single circumstance in which it would be anything close to morally acceptable.

Also, as far as societies go. The US for example, really doesn't have much variation in its moral code. The debate about abortion for example, is mainly about whether or not it classifies as murder, not about whether or not murder is moral.

Anyway, rape is a violation of what I consider to be the most basic humans rights, the right over one's person specifically. Rape causes direct physical (and emotional/mental) harm to someone else. What about back in the day when the concept of consent did not exist? Well, in my opinion, if women were forced to have sex, it was rape, and was immoral. What about societies where it is used as punishment? That's immoral too, as far as I'm concerned. Especially if it's for something that someone else did.

That is my opinion. Maybe if I grew up in a different society, my answer would be different, but as it is, I cannot see any morally acceptable situation for rape.

Nope. Look at the linked poll. 71% sya there is no objective moral truth. I wondered how many really believed that?
I voted Yes. :)

This is just moronic. Rape is wrong. Morally wrong? Well that varies from person to person. Go get yourself raped then we'll talk.

Ask yourself when it would be OK. I couldn't come up with any example, so I voted 100% wrong.

Interregation ... or deterrent for something or other ... I dont know, everything has its uses

DUH
rape is by defintion wrong. it is unlawful sex. it ranges from utterly consentual statutory rape of a minor to the brutal rape/murder/torture of a stranger.

same as murder is unlawful killing of a human being; same as theft is the unlawful appropriation of property. it is by definition wrong, if it werent wrong, it couldnt be called rape.

are there times when what is rape in one jurisdiction is fine in another? well yeah, in one state sex with a 17 year old is rape, in another its just good clean fun. as someone pointed out there was a time when sex between a husband and a wife could never be called rape no matter how brutal the assault was.

is there a time when non-consentual sex should be OK? i cant think of any. but there are certainly degrees of violation that should be taken into consideration. pressuring your girlfriend into sex that she has already said no to is extremely different from holding her down and forcing yourself on her.

But what if it is right by my personal and social moral framework?

If you thought so, you would be a threat to society and they will put you into prison. Because even if society thinks rape is not objectively wrong, society can still protect itself.
But this makes the society look rather egoistic. Therefore society got used to calling it morally wrong.

Because it's invading quite far beyond a person's privacy without their permission. Rape often leads to other side effects such as unwanted pregnancy, disease, injury and even death. Not to mention the mental anquishe.


dont be mistaken pregnancy is an extreamly rare side effect. The body will close up and not allow for a kid even on a most fertle day if induce to extream physical harm and or emotinal harm from the effects of rape. The only possible way to get pregnant is if they lie(as in wanted to then decided not afterwards and called it rape), or if the man repeatedly raped till they finnaly eased up and relaxed. Disease is possible very possible, injury and death too. I voted 100% wrong just dont want you getting the medias view on how "often" you get pregnant when raped

Of course it's wrong, but a lot of women go to far when they string men along. I think of the two sexes men are the most primal, and they definately have a lower tolerance when it comes to expecting booty and not getting it. I think it's the purpose of any rational mind to recognize these impulses and do away with them, but sadly common sense is not so common anymore.
For one thing, you seem to be blaming the victims.

For another, you seem to think that rape is about sex.

pressuring your girlfriend into sex that she has already said no to is extremely different from holding her down and forcing yourself on her.
Not really...

You can force someone emotionally and mentally just as much as you can physically.