NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a split off the "A Virgin Until Death" thread. In it, Soviestan asked:

Interesting. If there is a woman who is the last on the planet, but refuses to have sex, is it wrong to rape her to maintain the species?

So, NSers, is rape ever morally justified?

Never.

Edit: Never morally justified, that is.

I can't think of a realistic situation where rape would not be utterly morally wrong. Obviously, there are a billion unrealistic thought-experiments where this position could possibly be challenged, but I've yet to ever encounter or hear of a time when rape was an acceptable option.

If there is a woman who is the last on the planet, but refuses to have sex, is it wrong to rape her to maintain the species?

A single woman does not provide enough long-term genetic diversity to "maintain" the species.

If we're ever down to a single woman, or a single man, we're done as a species. Period. Maybe not right away, but certainly within a couple of generations of horribly inbred descendants.

Therefore, even in this extreme scenario, rape is unjustifiable, not only for the obvious reasons we attribute to rape in "normal" situations, but because in this instance it does nothing to solve the problem...as the problem is unsolvable.

I smell an epic thread in the making.

A corollary question: After stating whether rape is ever justified, state if there are any circumstances under which you might possibly commit rape, regardless of whether you think rape is ever justified.

A single woman does not provide enough long-term genetic diversity to "maintain" the species.

If we're ever down to a single woman, or a single man, we're done as a species. Period. Maybe not right away, but certainly within a couple of generations of horribly inbred descendants.

Therefore, even in this extreme scenario, rape is unjustifiable, not only for the obvious reasons we attribute to rape in normal situation, but because in this instance it does nothing to "solve" the problem, as the problem is unsolvable.

Not to mention the simple fact that species survival is not an intrinsic good. No one is harmed by people not reproducing and thus rendering ourselves extinct. But someone is definitely harmed by rape. Not to mention it treats an individual as a means to an end.

Shit I said yes well ignore that I meant no

A corollary question: After stating whether rape is ever justified, state if there are any circumstances under which you might possibly commit rape, regardless of whether you think rape is ever justified.

I can't, because there aren't any.

A single woman does not provide enough long-term genetic diversity to "maintain" the species.

If we're ever down to a single woman, or a single man, we're done as a species. Period. Maybe not right away, but certainly within a couple of generations of horribly inbred descendants.

Therefore, even in this extreme scenario, rape is unjustifiable, not only for the obvious reasons we attribute to rape in "normal" situations, but because in this instance it does nothing to solve the problem...as the problem is unsolvable.

Good point.


As for is it ever justifiable to rape a man or woman I would say that is a big NO. I can't think of any situation that would make it justifiable. As for morally it would never be alright.

Since I think there are greater evils than rape, there's the chance, though a low one, that it could be a lesser of two evils choice.

In those situations it would be morally justified in most people's opinions (I hope), including mine. Certainly in Jack Bauer's, which I'm taking as the mainstream for some reason:confused:.

As for situations that have actually happened. To my knowledge. Nope.

I can't, because there aren't any.

What if somebody spikes your punch with hallucinogens and (s)he's drunk and you hallucinate her/him saying "Fuck me, Vetalia" but (s)he really didn't say it and you go ahead and unintentionally rape him/her?

A corollary question: After stating whether rape is ever justified, state if there are any circumstances under which you might possibly commit rape, regardless of whether you think rape is ever justified.

As for is it ever justifiable to rape a man or woman I would say that is a big NO. I can't think of any situation that would make it justifiable. As for morally it would never be alright.

Well, I can think of a few instances in which it might be morally justifiable...but they are all extreme cases, such as "Rape this person or I nuke City X", and they would probably all involve a third party forcing the situation though the threat of harm upon others.

In a 1 to 1 situation, I cannot think of any reason to justify rape.

What if somebody spikes your punch with hallucinogens and (s)he's drunk and you hallucinate her/him saying "Fuck me, Vetalia" but (s)he really didn't say it and you go ahead and unintentionally rape him/her?

Being under the influence is never a defense for anything. Certainly not for rape. Also, it would cease to be unintentional if the other person said WTF? Get off me.

What if somebody spikes your punch with hallucinogens and (s)he's drunk and you hallucinate her/him saying "Fuck me, Vetalia" but (s)he really didn't say it and you go ahead and unintentionally rape him/her?

That would still be wrong. Both for me and for the person who committed the act in the first place.

What if civilization collapses after the ozone layer goes away, and only black people will ultimately survive in the rays of the sun, and you're the only black man left on earth with the only black woman, and you can build shelters for the white people to survive in, but only black people can patch holes in the exterior of the shelter, so you need to reproduce black people in order to save the white people, and the only way to do that is through rape? So by raping, you ultimately save millions of lives?

Being under the influence is never a defense for anything.

That's actually not exactly true

Being under the influence is never a defense for anything. Certainly not for rape. Also, it would cease to be unintentional if the other person said WTF? Get off me.
She's blind drunk

That would still be wrong. Both for me and for the person who committed the act in the first place.
Of course, but it's a circumstance that is remotely possible under which you would commit rape.

Lame hypotheticals are lame.

Of course, but it's a circumstance that is remotely possible under which you would commit rape.

There are always situations in which I could inadvertently commit rape, but that doesn't make it right. It's still wrong no matter what.

What if you're a brawny interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, and you have intelligence that indicates an imminent terrorist attack, the details of which are only known by a particular detainee. Unfortunately, since Democrats have taken over the White House, all your standard interrogation techniques and instruments are unavailable. Additionally, you know this detainee well enough that there is no chance of him talking unless you humiliate him, and you know that he's tough enough that there's only one way to do that. So you unzip your pants, get fill yourself with an arousing, bigoted hatred, and penetrate the prisoner repeatedly until he talks. Thousands of lives are saved because you raped a terrorist.

She's blind drunk
.

Interesting situation that probably would not hold in court if the woman or man proceeded with filing a report. However the case may be thrown out because of the fact that both people were high on drugs or alcohol.

However having sex with a strange partner in this type of situation would be in my opinion immoral and socially unacceptable. In the past I have pulled friends of mine out of situations where this type of interaction could happen just to protect them from doing something they regretted.

What if civilization collapses after the ozone layer goes away, and only black people will ultimately survive in the rays of the sun, and you're the only black man left on earth with the only black woman, and you can build shelters for the white people to survive in, but only black people can patch holes in the exterior of the shelter, so you need to reproduce black people in order to save the white people, and the only way to do that is through rape? So by raping, you ultimately save millions of lives?

No, just no. Not only is this technically unfeasible, it still does not make it right. People can always build shelters in shifts.

What if civilization collapses after the ozone layer goes away, and only black people will ultimately survive in the rays of the sun, and you're the only black man left on earth with the only black woman, and you can build shelters for the white people to survive in, but only black people can patch holes in the exterior of the shelter, so you need to reproduce black people in order to save the white people, and the only way to do that is through rape? So by raping, you ultimately save millions of lives?

LOL, black people are not aliens with super-resistant skin, your hypothetical scenario FAILS ;)

A single woman does not provide enough long-term genetic diversity to "maintain" the species.

If we're ever down to a single woman, or a single man, we're done as a species. Period. Maybe not right away, but certainly within a couple of generations of horribly inbred descendants.

Therefore, even in this extreme scenario, rape is unjustifiable, not only for the obvious reasons we attribute to rape in "normal" situations, but because in this instance it does nothing to solve the problem...as the problem is unsolvable.

Actually, it's been theorised that all European (ie: white) people did come from one original white female, an "eve" of sorts, possibly some kind of mutant. If I could find the link I'd show you. But, yes, you could possibly keep a species going from one female, as long as she were impregnated by enough genetically different males.

And no, rape is wrong. Bollocks to the good of the species.

What if you're a brawny interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, and you have intelligence that indicates an imminent terrorist attack, the details of which are only known by a particular detainee. Unfortunately, since Democrats have taken over the White House, all your standard interrogation techniques and instruments are unavailable. Additionally, you know this detainee well enough that there is no chance of him talking unless you humiliate him, and you know that he's tough enough that there's only one way to do that. So you unzip your pants, get fill yourself with an arousing, bigoted hatred, and penetrate the prisoner repeatedly until he talks. Thousands of lives are saved because you raped a terrorist.

I'm sorry, but no. Torture is torture, and it is neither justified nor effective.

What if you're a brawny interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, and you have intelligence that indicates an imminent terrorist attack, the details of which are only known by a particular detainee. Unfortunately, since Democrats have taken over the White House, all your standard interrogation techniques and instruments are unavailable. Additionally, you know this detainee well enough that there is no chance of him talking unless you humiliate him, and you know that he's tough enough that there's only one way to do that. So you unzip your pants, get fill yourself with an arousing, bigoted hatred, and penetrate the prisoner repeatedly until he talks. Thousands of lives are saved because you raped a terrorist.

Has that ever been a plausible situation? I could come up with a billion abstractions in which rape might be morally acceptable, but they're meaningless when it comes to real-world situations because they're simply not possible or plausible in the slightest. Unless there's a clear example of a situation like this, it's nothing more than a thought experiment.

Also, that would be a violation of the Geneva Convention among other things, which can go far above rape in terms of severity.

Thousands of lives are saved because you raped a terrorist.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

What if you're a brawny interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, and you have intelligence that indicates an imminent terrorist attack, the details of which are only known by a particular detainee. Unfortunately, since Democrats have taken over the White House, all your standard interrogation techniques and instruments are unavailable. Additionally, you know this detainee well enough that there is no chance of him talking unless you humiliate him, and you know that he's tough enough that there's only one way to do that. So you unzip your pants, get fill yourself with an arousing, bigoted hatred, and penetrate the prisoner repeatedly until he talks. Thousands of lives are saved because you raped a terrorist.

And six months later your willy drops off due to some horrific STD that the terrorist quite happily didn't tell you about.

Real life isn't an episode of 24 just so you know.

Yeah, but wouldn't that make for a kick-ass opening? Well... all right, no it wouldn't. But they do have to top last year's, where Jack--tied to a chair--ripped out a guy's jugular with his teeth.

I can see it now, this season opens with Jack sodomizing an Islamofacist to the sound of Barry White.

...What? I'm not watching it for the depth of it's story, you know.

Actually, it's been theorised that all European (ie: white) people did come from one original white female, an "eve" of sorts, possibly some kind of mutant. If I could find the link I'd show you.

I must say I'm skeptical...I'd really like to see the link if you happen to find it.

What if you're a brawny interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, and you have intelligence that indicates an imminent terrorist attack, the details of which are only known by a particular detainee. Unfortunately, since Democrats have taken over the White House, all your standard interrogation techniques and instruments are unavailable. Additionally, you know this detainee well enough that there is no chance of him talking unless you humiliate him, and you know that he's tough enough that there's only one way to do that. So you unzip your pants, get fill yourself with an arousing, bigoted hatred, and penetrate the prisoner repeatedly until he talks. Thousands of lives are saved because you raped a terrorist.
Real life isn't an episode of 24 just so you know.

What if you're a brawny interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, and you have intelligence that indicates an imminent terrorist attack, the details of which are only known by a particular detainee. Unfortunately, since Democrats have taken over the White House, all your standard interrogation techniques and instruments are unavailable. Additionally, you know this detainee well enough that there is no chance of him talking unless you humiliate him, and you know that he's tough enough that there's only one way to do that. So you unzip your pants, get fill yourself with an arousing, bigoted hatred, and penetrate the prisoner repeatedly until he talks. Thousands of lives are saved because you raped a terrorist.

You should somehow twist that so thousands of people aren't raped because you raped a terrorist. Say a cult member who's started a rape cult that has to be stopped.

Or you could just say that there's a situation where everyone would rape, there's no real need to actually think of it. At least not on this site. People will get offended by it very easily.

LOL, black people are not aliens with super-resistant skin, your hypothetical scenario FAILS ;)
I'm just sayin, black people don't have to put on as near high an SPF as I do. On the other hand, they do have to contend with things like ashy skin and racism.

What if you're a brawny interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, and you have intelligence that indicates an imminent terrorist attack, the details of which are only known by a particular detainee. Unfortunately, since Democrats have taken over the White House, all your standard interrogation techniques and instruments are unavailable. Additionally, you know this detainee well enough that there is no chance of him talking unless you humiliate him, and you know that he's tough enough that there's only one way to do that. So you unzip your pants, get fill yourself with an arousing, bigoted hatred, and penetrate the prisoner repeatedly until he talks. Thousands of lives are saved because you raped a terrorist.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd135/deathbysp4m/god_will_get_you.jpg

Thank you for playing

What if you're a brawny interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, and you have intelligence that indicates an imminent terrorist attack, the details of which are only known by a particular detainee. Unfortunately, since Democrats have taken over the White House, all your standard interrogation techniques and instruments are unavailable. Additionally, you know this detainee well enough that there is no chance of him talking unless you humiliate him, and you know that he's tough enough that there's only one way to do that. So you unzip your pants, get fill yourself with an arousing, bigoted hatred, and penetrate the prisoner repeatedly until he talks. Thousands of lives are saved because you raped a terrorist.

If you do this, you should be thrown in jail, and any info gathered should be shredded without reading.

You in this case is a general you.

Rape is always wrong, period.

You should somehow twist that so thousands of people aren't raped because you raped a terrorist. Say a cult member who's started a rape cult that has to be stopped.Yeah, and if I could work in Scientology, "Anonymous", and pedophilia, that would be the jackpot I think.

What the fuck is wrong with you?
I'm not sure, but I'm getting kinda hard.

If you do this, you should be thrown in jail, and any info gathered should be shredded without reading.

You in this case is a general you.

Rape is always wrong, period.
But NOT raping would kill people, and killing people is always wrong too.

But NOT raping would kill people, and killing people is always wrong too.

Yeah, but has there ever been a situation like that?

Besides, what happens if that information ends up being false, or if there never was a plot to commit that act? You may have just humiliated and emotionally damaged an innocent person...that's not something you can just write off with a check and a public apology.

I must say I'm skeptical...I'd really like to see the link if you happen to find it.

One bigass link (http://books.google.com/books?id=hoBZmtfO-0AC&pg=PA327&lpg=PA327&dq=human+origins+single+female&source=web&ots=n_1-ST_G5H&sig=A_2H1H6IUYXDAO9XrNsZU2XfvQY#PPA327,M1)

It's disputed by some, but.. yes, as long as you have enough males, you could keep a species going from one female. Whether it actually happened or not is what's under dispute. I think most people think it did happen. I just remember this from reading it in a newspaper once.

It's disputed by some, but.. yes, as long as you have enough males, you could keep a species going from one female. Whether it actually happened or not is what's under dispute. I think most people think it did happen. I just remember this from reading it in a newspaper once.

Isn't the converse also true? With enough females, you could keep a species going using only one male?

But NOT raping would kill people, and killing people is always wrong too.

Not making more people is not the same as killing people. Sorry.

Isn't the converse also true? With enough females, you could keep a species going using only one male?

I don't know, but I'm sure you'd have the happiest male in human history trying to find out.

Quite probably, I suppose.

(also: I Am Not A Biologist)

Yeah, but has there ever been a situation like that?No but there could be! I mean, waterboarding man... We gotta keep it on the table or the terrorists win!

Besides, what happens if that information ends up being false, or if there never was a plot to commit that act? You may have just humiliated and emotionally damaged an innocent person...that's not something you can just write off with a check and a public apology.If the check is big enough I would be okay with being brutally raped. Uncertainty is a constant part of every decision and judgment we make.

I don't know, but I'm sure you'd have the happiest male in human history trying to find out.

Quite probably, I suppose.

Doubtful. At first it would be awesome, but then think about the nagging that would go on after about a week. That's why we don't just have an Alpha male. He uses the rest of us as buffers. :D

No but there could be! I mean, waterboarding man... We gotta keep it on the table or the terrorists win!

But if we start raping people, haven't they already?

If the check is big enough I would be okay with being brutally raped. Uncertainty is a constant part of every decision and judgment we make.

...And you're OK with ignoring your doubts for situations like this?

Not making more people is not the same as killing people. Sorry.
Incorrect, people aren't getting "not made" if you don't rape the terrorist, they're getting killed. Not raping the terrorist kills innocent people. By not raping the terrorist, you commit mass murder. Is rape worse than mass murder?

No but there could be! I mean, waterboarding man... We gotta keep it on the table or the terrorists win!

Well, that is, if you don't mind having your ass hauled off to Geneva (or wherever they'd try you) and tried for war crimes.

If the check is big enough I would be okay with being brutally raped. Uncertainty is a constant part of every decision and judgment we make.

I'm gonna have to call BS on this one.

what if the woman in question has a rape fantasy?
;):p:D:gundge:

Then it's not rape.

NEXT!

what if the woman in question has a rape fantasy?
;):p:D:gundge:

By not raping the terrorist, you commit mass murder. Is rape worse than mass murder?

Uhm, no. By planting a bomb and setting it to go off, the terrorists cause mass murder. Don't ever forget that.

i don't think its even a question of justification.

what is always wrong is a cultural context that makes rape the emotional tragidy that the dominant culture does.

so its really a question entirely within and with the cultural context that surrounds it.

of course the fact that our planet is over rather then under populated and there are so many sexually transmittable diseases also enters into it.

the main problem though is the social condemnation of women for being sexually generous. if instead they were honored for this, as indeed they could more readily be in a world less densely populated, i really believe this would cast that question in an entirely different light.

also likewise, if it did not mean the risk of disease and unwanted and unprovided for pregnancy.

recognizing fully however, that it is a robbery of someone's mind and time that they might otherwise doing something else that they might greatly have perfered to have been doing. yet there are many ways in which a culture could also prevent this while still not requiring all sexual gratification to be mutually consensual.

please note however that i AM refering to cultures that most likely do not currently exist on earth. though some may very well in a less overpopulated past, and others may yet, in an equally less populated future.

it is NOT a 'simple' issue. for many reasons. not the least of which is the well being of society and that includes the deliterious affects of excessive levels of ambient aggressiveness, which inadiquite access to sexual gratification is among the primary causes.

especially among early adolescents, which is completely against nature for this to be repressed as the dominant culture does.

=^^=
.../\...

This is a split off the "A Virgin Until Death" thread. In it, Soviestan asked:
Interesting. If there is a woman who is the last on the planet, but refuses to have sex, is it wrong to rape her to maintain the species?
So, NSers, is rape ever morally justified?It's not just your species. Besides, if it really is the last woman on earth, the species is doomed anyway, as there isn't enough genetic material to go around for a healthy species.

It's not just your species. Besides, if it really is the last woman on earth, the species is doomed anyway, as there isn't enough genetic material to go around for a healthy species.

I'll post this link (http://books.google.com/books?id=hoBZmtfO-0AC&pg=PA327&lpg=PA327&dq=human+origins+single+female&source=web&ots=n_1-ST_G5H&sig=A_2H1H6IUYXDAO9XrNsZU2XfvQY#PPA327,M1) again, for your perusal. Seems like we all came from an incredibly restricted gene pool.

Which might explain a lot of problems!

Uhm, no. By planting a bomb and setting it to go off, the terrorists cause mass murder. Don't ever forget that.
Of course the terrorists are responsible, but that doesn't mean you aren't as well. By not raping the terrorist, you are allowing the mass murder to happen via the terrorists. If that weren't the case, then you could say that the terrorists weren't responsible because all they did was connect some wires and drop it in a mailbox - it was the Fed Ex guys who made the delivery You could say that Osama bin laden wasn't responsible for 9/11 because wasn't the one flying the planes into the buildings, but he made it possible.

By not raping the terrorist, you are allowing the mass murder to happen via the terrorists.
In a completely hypothetical and frankly ridiculous situation.

The ‘Ticking Bomb’ argument is a very poor one, one that’s been refuted numerous times. Unless you can show how, in a real world situation, raping/torturing an individual would give you guaranteed, accurate information in the time-frame proposed (something that seems impossible) the argument falls flat.

I'll post this link (http://books.google.com/books?id=hoBZmtfO-0AC&pg=PA327&lpg=PA327&dq=human+origins+single+female&source=web&ots=n_1-ST_G5H&sig=A_2H1H6IUYXDAO9XrNsZU2XfvQY#PPA327,M1) again, for your perusal. Seems like we all came from an incredibly restricted gene pool.

Which might explain a lot of problems!Um... Did you read it? The parts I read mad the case that we come from an incredibly diverse gene pool and that it's becoming less so, not the other way around...

In a completely hypothetical and frankly ridiculous situation.

The ‘Ticking Bomb’ argument is a very poor one, one that’s been refuted numerous times. Unless you can show how, in a real world situation, raping/torturing an individual would give you guaranteed, accurate information in the time-frame proposed (something that seems impossible) the argument falls flat.
Of course it's hypothetical and ridiculous. The question is hypothetical and ridiculous. As for the "Ticking Bomb" argument being "refuted", I beg to differ. Officials claim that they've stopped plots by waterboarding. Of course they're full of shit, but it's perfectly plausible. There have been at least a few actual terrorists detained and interrogated by the US. If not for blind rounding up of Afghanis into Guantanamo and the leaks about the black sites, it's perfectly plausible that the US could have interrogated/waterboarded/raped known terrorists until they died without the adverse effects of having the world know about it, and if they interrogated 1000 terrorists in order to stop another 9/11, that's a saving three lives for every one taken. I'm not saying the government should do this - they shouldn't because governments can't be trusted with the kind of power to do this kind of thing - I'm just saying that the scenario is hypothetically possible.

Um... Did you read it? The parts I read mad the case that we come from an incredibly diverse gene pool and that it's becoming less so, not the other way around...

I read it, of course. It makes the case that there was an evolutionary bottleneck at some point in our past. For instance, two completely different people from other sides of the world will be related more closely than two unrelated gorillas in the very same area of jungle.

The idea is, that the DNA from only one "eve" is present in everybody's DNA. This is a strong suggestor that we were, at some point, all descended from the same female. Or at least, that this female was so hugely productive that her DNA has drowned out all others.

So, NSers, is rape ever morally justified?

No. Never.

Do I really need to justify this anwer?
I'll try.

Rape is violence. Violence is justified only if it saves lives. Rape never saves lives.
Hence rape is never justified.

Of course it’s hypothetical and ridiculous.
Now we’ve established that, we can move on.

Only when he/she consents to it. In b4 that makes it not rape

actually i believe a culture in which rape was NOT always a tragidy, would save many lives. the many hundreds of thosands and more that are lost in wars as well as more intentionally deadly individual street assualts.

by lowering the ambient aggressiveness which motivates and enables these other tragidies.

=^^=
.../\...

My assistant refuses to do this because she loves her loser boyfriend, Reed. She wants to save herself for him even if it destroys Earth. I, of course, am willing to sacrifice myself for the greater good.

Is rape justified?
Brings a whole new (disturbing) meaning to ‘It’s Clobberin’ Time!!"

:p

In a completely hypothetical and frankly ridiculous situation.

The ‘Ticking Bomb’ argument is a very poor one, one that’s been refuted numerous times. Unless you can show how, in a real world situation, raping/torturing an individual would give you guaranteed, accurate information in the time-frame proposed (something that seems impossible) the argument falls flat.

Let's say I'm a scientist from Latveria. I happen to be surveying a comet with my assistant who coincidently looks exactly like Jessica Alba. Suddenly we are both engulfed in a cosmic ray storm. The storm has not only diverted the comet onto a collision course with Earth, but it has also done strange things to our bodies. After a thorough examination, we find that our genitals are now positively and negatively charged in a manner similar to antimatter.

We determine that the only way to destroy the comet and save the Earth is to have hot space sex for as long as it takes to cause a matter/antimatter explosion. My calculations estimate 30-45 minutes. My assistant refuses to do this because she loves her loser boyfriend, Reed. She wants to save herself for him even if it destroys Earth. I, of course, am willing to sacrifice myself for the greater good.

Is rape justified?

actually i believe a culture in which rape was NOT always a tragidy, would save many lives. the many hundreds of thosands and more that are lost in wars as well as more intentionally deadly individual street assualts.

by lowering the ambient aggressiveness which motivates and enables these other tragidies.

=^^=
.../\...
Hey Cameroi; where do you live, so I know where NEVER TO BRING A FEMALE WITHIN ONE HUNDRED MILES of?

I read it, of course. It makes the case that there was an evolutionary bottleneck at some point in our past. For instance, two completely different people from other sides of the world will be related more closely than two unrelated gorillas in the very same area of jungle.

The idea is, that the DNA from only one "eve" is present in everybody's DNA. This is a strong suggestor that we were, at some point, all descended from the same female. Or at least, that this female was so hugely productive that her DNA has drowned out all others.Yes, that is the case, but not necessarily the bottleneck bit. It's more a statement that genetic diversity will diminish over generations.

No. Never.

Do I really need to justify this anwer?
I'll try.

Rape is violence. Violence is justified only if it saves lives. Rape never saves lives.
Hence rape is never justified.

I remember an episode of Criminal Minds, where some guy robbed banks, but instead of taking money he told the persons inside the bank to take off their clothes and started having sex, or else he would shoot the hostages one by one.
I dont see why this is not plausible with all the perverted and twisted minds on this planet.
And Im sure those customers werent planning on having sex with each other, therefore I think it's safe to say it would be rape ;)

Let's say I'm a scientist from Latveria. I happen to be surveying a comet with my assistant who coincidently looks exactly like Jessica Alba. Suddenly we are both engulfed in a cosmic ray storm. The storm has not only diverted the comet onto a collision course with Earth, but it has also done strange things to our bodies. After a thorough examination, we find that our genitals are now positively and negatively charged in a manner similar to antimatter.

We determine that the only way to destroy the comet and save the Earth is to have hot space sex for as long as it takes to cause a matter/antimatter explosion. My calculations estimate 30-45 minutes. My assistant refuses to do this because she loves her loser boyfriend, Reed. She wants to save herself for him even if it destroys Earth. I, of course, am willing to sacrifice myself for the greater good.

Is rape justified?

If her gentials some how became 'anti-matter' then wouldn't she just 'annihilate' herself?

I'm sorry, but no. Torture is torture, and it is neither justified nor effective.It's a myth that torture isn't effective. If you have the right instruments and expertise to determine the veracity of the detainee's statements then it's very effective.

Whose definition of wrong?

I voted option 9 though I really should have voted no: If animals rape or get raped it's natural, not wrong or right.

I would also extend that to a malfunctioning human being: While the act is wrong from the target's viewpoint from the perpetrator's viewpoint it can be something else.

That doesn't make the act of raping any more acceptable when fellow humans are involved.

It's a myth that torture isn't effective. If you have the right instruments and expertise to determine the veracity of the detainee's statements then it's very effective.

I suspect it's just as much a myth that torture is effective. After all, there's nothing to suggest that certain people couldn't endure a fatal amount of pain before revealing any of the information you want.

But that's a matter for another thread.

It's a myth that torture isn't effective. If you have the right instruments and expertise to determine the veracity of the detainee's statements then it's very effective.

Its not interesting whether its effective or not. Its wrong to torture, in ANY and ALL cases.

Let me put it this way: i'd rather be dead then alive, if my life is bought at the cost of torture or rape.

Let me put it this way: i'd rather be dead then alive, if my life is bought at the cost of torture or rape.

Then what are you still doing breathing? :D

Your life - everyone's life - is dependent of acts of rape, insest and brutal violence committed eons ago: Civilization is a new concept in the history of humanity and life on Earth.


btw. Even more so if you believe in creationism :p

Hey Cameroi; where do you live, so I know where NEVER TO BRING A FEMALE WITHIN ONE HUNDRED MILES of?

to the contrary, i am prefectly well awaire of the realities of the culture i do live surrounded by, the tragidy THEY MAKE rape be, have never wished the unhappiness of anyone of any gender, and have never committed a sexual, or any other kind of assualt, and have no intention of doing so.

none of which invalidates any of the social dynamics i have attempted to point out.

if you have a conflict with THEM, THEN you could make a valid point by addressing them in an objective manor.

=^^=
.../\...

If her gentials some how became 'anti-matter' then wouldn't she just 'annihilate' herself?

That's why I said "similar" to anti-matter. ;)

Then what are you still doing breathing? :D

Your life - everyone's life - is dependent of acts of rape, insest and brutal violence committed eons ago: Civilization is a new concept in the history of humanity and life on Earth.


btw. Even more so if you believe in creationism :p

Well, i dont consider the actions of my great-great-(insert a few more)-grandfather are very pretinent to me being alive ;)

It’s a myth that torture isn’t effective. If you have the right instruments and expertise to determine the veracity of the detainee’s statements then it’s very effective.
Perhaps, but as far as I see it, it’s completely ineffective at obtaining guaranteed, accurate information in a short time-frame, which is the question at hand.

But, as Ifreann says, this is for another thread.

Rape is wrong. No bullshit "if"s, "and"s or "but"s.

In a completely hypothetical and frankly ridiculous situation.

The ‘Ticking Bomb’ argument is a very poor one, one that’s been refuted numerous times. Unless you can show how, in a real world situation, raping/torturing an individual would give you guaranteed, accurate information in the time-frame proposed (something that seems impossible) the argument falls flat.

Um, as opposed to the situation which started this thread?

Yes it is always wrong.

This is a split off the "A Virgin Until Death" thread. In it, Soviestan asked:



So, NSers, is rape ever morally justified?

If there's only 1 woman left on the planet, humanity is screwed.

Let's say I'm a scientist from Latveria. I happen to be surveying a comet with my assistant who coincidently looks exactly like Jessica Alba. Suddenly we are both engulfed in a cosmic ray storm. The storm has not only diverted the comet onto a collision course with Earth, but it has also done strange things to our bodies. After a thorough examination, we find that our genitals are now positively and negatively charged in a manner similar to antimatter.

We determine that the only way to destroy the comet and save the Earth is to have hot space sex for as long as it takes to cause a matter/antimatter explosion. My calculations estimate 30-45 minutes. My assistant refuses to do this because she loves her loser boyfriend, Reed. She wants to save herself for him even if it destroys Earth. I, of course, am willing to sacrifice myself for the greater good.

Is rape justified?

Hello Dr Doom.

And based on this statement, coming into proximity with your assistant would result in immediate matter to energy conversion if it's anything at all like antimatter.

And lastly, your idea of saving Earth from a massive asteroid is to blow yourself up in an explosion that is likely even more devastating.... on Earth?

There is a certain amount of wiggle room in how you define rape. Many of us consider sex with a minor to be rape. yet it is possible that an older person may have genuine feelings of love and respect for someone below the age of consent. So, if they were to make love, we would define the act as rape, but it would be as morally justified as any other sexual act between loving and consenting partners.

I cannot think of any realistic situation where it would be morally justifiable to sexually assault someone who has explicitly refused to have sex.

I've thought about this a lot, as I am somewhat of a moral relativist. This does appear to be one of the few generalisations we can make about morality.

This is a split off the "A Virgin Until Death" thread. In it, Soviestan asked:



So, NSers, is rape ever morally justified?

That would imply that maintaining the species is a good thing... I'm not convinced of that.

Let's say I'm a scientist from Latveria. I happen to be surveying a comet with my assistant who coincidently looks exactly like Jessica Alba. Suddenly we are both engulfed in a cosmic ray storm. The storm has not only diverted the comet onto a collision course with Earth, but it has also done strange things to our bodies. After a thorough examination, we find that our genitals are now positively and negatively charged in a manner similar to antimatter.

We determine that the only way to destroy the comet and save the Earth is to have hot space sex for as long as it takes to cause a matter/antimatter explosion. My calculations estimate 30-45 minutes. My assistant refuses to do this because she loves her loser boyfriend, Reed. She wants to save herself for him even if it destroys Earth. I, of course, am willing to sacrifice myself for the greater good.

Is rape justified?

The collective energies contained within your genitals would create an explosion that would probably devastate a good proportion of the solar system, never mind the planet.

So no.

Um, as opposed to the situation which started this thread?
Not at all.

Both are nonsense.

So, if they were to make love, we would define the act as rape, but it would be as morally justified as any other sexual act between loving and consenting partners.

If one of the partners is below the age of consent then they can't consent, whether they want to or not.

I see what you did there. OK:

What if a man was so desperate that he grabbed me off the street and raped me in the hope that I would later give birth to a person with the power to put an end to bullshit like the above and this entire debate? "Would dat den be a sin, dere, fatha?" (quoting George Carlin)

You could give birth to the Anti-Bullshit Messiah?

Quick! Someone get seducing! STAT!

This is a split off the "A Virgin Until Death" thread. In it, Soviestan asked:



So, NSers, is rape ever morally justified?
No.

It is never morally justified. Not under any circumstances. It is always an immoral choice of action. Even under social systems where it has been tolerated, it is an immoral act to which a "pass" is given for some reason (like in using rape as a terroristic weapon in war (which is a war crime, btw)). Every single person who has ever condoned rape or attempted to justify rape has known that they were lying. The majority of rapists have also known that what they were doing wrong, immoral acts. A tiny, teensy, miniscule minority of rapists are so mentally ill that they cannot judge right from wrong, but a few individuals' inability to have a moral sense does not make their acts morally justifiable.

What if civilization collapses after the ozone layer goes away, and only black people will ultimately survive in the rays of the sun, and you're the only black man left on earth with the only black woman, and you can build shelters for the white people to survive in, but only black people can patch holes in the exterior of the shelter, so you need to reproduce black people in order to save the white people, and the only way to do that is through rape? So by raping, you ultimately save millions of lives?
I see what you did there. OK:

What if a man was so desperate that he grabbed me off the street and raped me in the hope that I would later give birth to a person with the power to put an end to bullshit like the above and this entire debate? "Would dat den be a sin, dere, fatha?" (quoting George Carlin)

It's quite obviously always wrong.

Let's say I'm a scientist from Latveria. I happen to be surveying a comet with my assistant who coincidently looks exactly like Jessica Alba. Suddenly we are both engulfed in a cosmic ray storm. The storm has not only diverted the comet onto a collision course with Earth, but it has also done strange things to our bodies. After a thorough examination, we find that our genitals are now positively and negatively charged in a manner similar to antimatter.

We determine that the only way to destroy the comet and save the Earth is to have hot space sex for as long as it takes to cause a matter/antimatter explosion. My calculations estimate 30-45 minutes. My assistant refuses to do this because she loves her loser boyfriend, Reed. She wants to save herself for him even if it destroys Earth. I, of course, am willing to sacrifice myself for the greater good.

Is rape justified?
No, and if you try it, your assistant will hit you really, really, really hard -- so hard you won't even see her doing it. Why? Because boring stiff loser though he is, Reed is TEH HOT!, whereas you just look like that talentless idiot who couldn't even hang onto that slutty excuse for a witch on "Charmed."

No, there aren't.

There have been quite a few of them so in this thread alone. If I had the time I'm sure I could eventually think of a billion stupid hypotheticals and ask if rape was justified in them.


I'm certainly never going to do such a thing, but I could if I really REALLY wanted to.

I can't think of a realistic situation where rape would not be utterly morally wrong. Obviously, there are a billion unrealistic thought-experiments where this position could possibly be challenged, but I've yet to ever encounter or hear of a time when rape was an acceptable option.

QFT

No, there aren't.

Aliens + experiments + you + unwilling male/female+ threat to destroy world = ?

I remember an episode of Criminal Minds, where some guy robbed banks, but instead of taking money he told the persons inside the bank to take off their clothes and started having sex, or else he would shoot the hostages one by one.
I dont see why this is not plausible with all the perverted and twisted minds on this planet.
And Im sure those customers werent planning on having sex with each other, therefore I think it's safe to say it would be rape ;)
Just as life is not "24" episode, neither is it a "Criminal Minds" episode, nor any of tv's other censored porn fantasy scenarios.

I voted No, rape is a crime,not to mention,if you are so lame as you need to take the poontang by force, you should be beaten with sticks.

just popping in lads, and now the shameless plug of my nationstates region!!!! Bumhahahahaha!!!!!!

Greetings, I personally invite you to join me at " One Big Island :" we have a nice mix of nations there, it would honor me if you joined us :D <:3)~
http://www.phpbbserver.com/obi/
^ have a look at our forum as well

I can't think of a realistic situation where rape would not be utterly morally wrong. Obviously, there are a billion unrealistic thought-experiments where this position could possibly be challenged,

No, there aren't.

BTW what the hell is Option 9?

So, if they were to make love, we would define the act as rape, but it would be as morally justified as any other sexual act between loving and consenting partners.

If one of the partners is below the age of consent then they can't consent, whether they want to or not.

Thank you for providing an example of the behaviour I was discussing.

Yes there are circumstances when rape is morally right.

Then again those circumstances happen to be that our state of morality itself to be warped in reverse of what it is now.

That or Bizzaro world invades us.

If you do this, you should be thrown in jail, and any info gathered should be shredded without reading.

You in this case is a general you.

I say shred both the information and the perp. Well, at least part of him.

But NOT raping would kill people, and killing people is always wrong too.

No it isn't. Killing innocent people is always wrong, killing someone who is trying to kill you or another innocent person is both legal and moral.

BTW what the hell is Option 9?The ninth option.

The ninth option.


I was hoping the 9th option was waterboarding for rapist.

Thank you for providing an example of the behaviour I was discussing.

Are you going to disagree or is predicting it enough for you?

Incorrect, people aren't getting "not made" if you don't rape the terrorist, they're getting killed. Not raping the terrorist kills innocent people. By not raping the terrorist, you commit mass murder.

No, the terrorist commits murder (or more likely someone from his organization does). By not raping him you refuse to commit a crime.

ish, i voted for the wrong poll response. My answer if no. Anytime you forcibly deny the rights of another human being it is wrong.

Let's say I'm a scientist from Latveria. I happen to be surveying a comet with my assistant who coincidently looks exactly like Jessica Alba. Suddenly we are both engulfed in a cosmic ray storm. The storm has not only diverted the comet onto a collision course with Earth, but it has also done strange things to our bodies. After a thorough examination, we find that our genitals are now positively and negatively charged in a manner similar to antimatter.

We determine that the only way to destroy the comet and save the Earth is to have hot space sex for as long as it takes to cause a matter/antimatter explosion. My calculations estimate 30-45 minutes. My assistant refuses to do this because she loves her loser boyfriend, Reed. She wants to save herself for him even if it destroys Earth. I, of course, am willing to sacrifice myself for the greater good.

Is rape justified?

No.

I've read them, I stand by my statement. None of them justify shit.

None of them were meant to justify anything, simply to challenge the assertion that rape is always wrong. They've all challenged that assertion, and the general response was 'The doesn't justify rape' or 'All these hypotheticals are a load of bullshit'.

ish, i voted for the wrong poll response. My answer if no. Anytime you forcibly deny the rights of another human being it is wrong.

... uh, prison?

There have been quite a few of them so in this thread alone.

I've read them, I stand by my statement. None of them justify shit.

Okay. What if, generalization of the hypothetical situation here, the other person would submit to intercourse if you could properly communicate the reasons why to them? This clearly brings up the question how could one know that the other would agree with their thoughts and if they are even right.

Let us say however that this situation actually happens and due to time constraints or other communication problems (eg. language barriers etc.) you don't have time to explain to someone why you need to have intercourse and are forced to rape them. Afterwords you 'have the time' to explain it to them and they then agree with your way of thinking and forgive you for raping them. Is that still rape? Is that situation just not plausible as there is no real life likeness? Or perhaps one can not take the perspective of someone after the rape as the outcome is always unknown.

If you were 99% sure they would agree with you though?

Okay. What if, generalization of the hypothetical situation here, the other person would submit to intercourse if you could properly communicate the reasons why to them? This clearly brings up the question how could one know that the other would agree with their thoughts and if they are even right.

Let us say however that this situation actually happens and due to time constraints or other communication problems (eg. language barriers etc.) you don't have time to explain to someone why you need to have intercourse and are forced to rape them. Afterwords you 'have the time' to explain it to them and they then agree with your way of thinking and forgive you for raping them. Is that still rape? Is that situation just not plausible as there is no real life likeness? Or perhaps one can not take the perspective of someone after the rape as the outcome is always unknown.

If you were 99% sure they would agree with you though?

Bolded for the answer.

I answered no, because there is no realistic situation where it would be acceptable. But in a completely hypothetical situation where it could save lives, save great amounts of material stuff (I mean infrastructure, houses and something actually useful and vital to the society) etc., yes, I would find it acceptable. The mental and probably physical harm conducted to a single person is acceptable in the case where the damages would be greater if this harm was not done. But it is stupid to ever think in any situation that raping would help a thing. If it was necessary to have sex with a woman, you should try to make her attracted to you instead of raping her. Just a tip :p

None of them were meant to justify anything, simply to challenge the assertion that rape is always wrong. They've all challenged that assertion, and the general response was 'The doesn't justify rape' or 'All these hypotheticals are a load of bullshit'.

It may be that I'm subconsciously adding the word successfully right before challenge. Or just the fact that I don't really see any of them as qualifying as an actual "challenge" in that they might actually persuade a sane person.

Bah, you title the thread "Is rape always wrong" and then switch the question to "Is rape ever justified" My vote is with no, aka always wrong, but I put the wrong one.

Is raping people worse than killing people? Be sure to ask yourself the question would you rather be raped or killed. Killing people is justified all the time. So the justifications of killing somebody must fall apart when compared to rape eh. It is interesting that all over the world the legal penalties for rape are much lower than murder.

I was thinking of this in terms of the death penalty and now I suppose the rape penalty. In the eye for an eye justice system a convicted rapist would be submitted to rape. If the original victim could only find closure by their rapist being raped to know what it feels like, would that make it right?

If one of the partners is below the age of consent then they can't consent, whether they want to or not.

That would be the legal age of consent, which varies from country to country. The question was whether rape could ever be morally justified.

It depends on your definition of rape really. Statutory rape I can see a case for in certain circumstances (I don't find anything morally unjustifiable about two US 17 year olds having sex) but non-statutory rape I can't think of a realistic situation that.

Sure. It's perfectly morally justifiable to force a rapist into nonconsentual sex. In fact, it should be an acceptable sentencing option.

Even if you ignore the moral part you might as well kill yourself if there are only 2 people alive on the planet.

That would be the legal age of consent, which varies from country to country. The question was whether rape could ever be morally justified.

It depends on your definition of rape really. Statutory rape I can see a case for in certain circumstances (I don't find anything morally unjustifiable about two US 17 year olds having sex) but non-statutory rape I can't think of a realistic situation that.

I never said anything about moral justification, I said that if one of the parties is below the age of consent then they cannot consent. That's how consent works.

No rape is not morally justifiable, and the whole "last people on earth scenario" i'd just let the human race die, i mean look where it's got to, i don't think i'd want that again.
No.

They cannot legally consent. I was trying to make the point that even if they cannot legally consent then it doesn't mean that they can't morally consent. I'm explaining it badly, the OP asked moral, and I was try to say moral=/=legal.

Which leads to the fact that until one's late teens one's brain is not properly formed(IMS), and thus one can't make informed decisions the way an adult can. But I'm no brain science guy, so I'll leave that to people who know what they're talking about.

I never said anything about moral justification, I said that if one of the parties is below the age of consent then they cannot consent. That's how consent works.

They cannot legally consent. I was trying to make the point that even if they cannot legally consent then it doesn't mean that they can't morally consent. I'm explaining it badly, the OP asked moral, and I was try to say moral=/=legal.

I said yes it s always wrong.


I will state no more and Im not even going to read this thread, because of certian history of certian people very dear to me, I will be extremely aggressive and hostile to anyone who thinks its not always wrong, so for eveyone's benefit Im just staying out of this one.

Don't most animals rape each other? I know I've see male dogs and ducks rape each other. Rape may be morally abhorrent to humans but it seems to have a place in the natural order of things. I mean, when was the last time you saw animal kissing and going on dates before having sex? They mostly just get horny and then force sex.

Don't most animals rape each other?

No.

Rape ... it seems to have a place in the natural order of things.

No.

I mean, when was the last time you saw animal kissing and going on dates before having sex?

Lack of social dating =/= rape

They mostly just get horny and then force sex.

No.

For all practical purposes, yes (always wrong).

However, if you posed the question to someone like Heinlein, I am sure they can come with some ridiculous situation that will never occur, under which it could be justified.

But what is the poll asking? A situation that may occur, or a situation that is only possible in our imaginations?

Don't most animals rape each other?


If that were true, but I dont think it is, the difference between an animal and a human is that humans are capable of feeling shame, violation, self loathing, etc. I dont think animals are, because they dont have complex social mores.


Damn it, I said I wouldnt come back here:mp5:

Well, I'm impressed. A full 2/3rds of NSers think that rape is absolutely wrong...

:rolleyes:

I'm really, really hoping that the 27 "yes" voters all misread the question, and really, really fearing that many of them did not. :(

Isn't the converse also true? With enough females, you could keep a species going using only one male?

It's a hell of a lot easier with many females rather than many males. When it comes to increasing diversity it helps to have as many members as possible.

Australian Rabbits are a good example of this. They came from 13 members but the bred and spread so fast that their overall genetic diversity is similar to British and French rabbits after only 200 years.

Afaik mtDNA (mitochondrial) accumulates at 4 times the rate of nDNA, not ten times. Mitochondrial eve existed (~130,000 years ago, I think) before any humans moved out of Africa.

It also doesn't mean that every human came from that one female as what happened was her mtDNA lineage became dominant by chance. That lineage may have procuced many female children whilst other lineages may have died out or only produced males. Then, several generations afterward, some kind of population bottleneck may have taken the remaining other-lineage minority.

Don't most animals rape each other?

Some do. But what does that matter?

Bah bad poll....stupid me.

The thread reads Is Rape Always Wrong

The list reads Is Rape Ever Justified


I said "yes".....answering the title Is Rape Always Wrong :headbang:



YES IT IS ALWAYS WRONG

NO IT IS NEVER JUSTIFIED

Don't most animals rape each other? I know I've see male dogs and ducks rape each other. Rape may be morally abhorrent to humans but it seems to have a place in the natural order of things. I mean, when was the last time you saw animal kissing and going on dates before having sex? They mostly just get horny and then force sex.What the hell do you know about animals? Zoos have a very difficult time getting animals to reproduce.

And since when do dogs rape each other? I thought all dogs where sluts.

If people *cough*U.S.*cough*government*cough* can justify torture then they might as well justify rape for the same purpose. Just think of this, if the rapist used lube and maybe if the victim was restrained then there wasn't necessarily any physical damage done, the only damage would be to the pride and spirit. Or how about this, if a guard jerked off a male prisoner, would it be a case of rape? Assuming that the prisoner didn't like it, it would be at least sexual abuse if not rape. And I'd imagine most people would feel humiliated, especially if the abuser was male and the prisoner was homophobic. It would be torture with a very low chance of physical damage. Personally I don't think it's justified to force people to give information through torture so rape falls in the same category. And as mentioned on the first page, the last woman on earth point is also moot because indeed there would not be enough genetic material with just one mother. Even if ALL the remaining women in the world refused to reproduce (very unlikely), rape would be wrong. Then men would have to convince them that the human race is going to become extinct if they don't carry babies, and if the women decided to let that happen then so be it.

I'm really, really hoping that the 27 "yes" voters all misread the question, and really, really fearing that many of them did not. :(

Stupid me for flipping around the wording of the question.

Not me. I have nothing against tape. :)

It's been fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.

Well, I'm impressed. A full 2/3rds of NSers think that tape is absolutely wrong...

:rolleyes:

Not me. I have nothing against tape. :)

Okay. What if, generalization of the hypothetical situation here, the other person would submit to intercourse if you could properly communicate the reasons why to them? <snip>
If they agree to submit to intercourse then it's not rape. If they agree to do it, it's called consensual sex. Rape only exists if Party(ies) A forces sex on Party B against Party B's will. So... another hypothetical fails to justify rape.

Bah bad poll....stupid me.

The thread reads Is Rape Always Wrong

The list reads Is Rape Ever Justified


I said "yes".....answering the title Is Rape Always Wrong :headbang:



YES IT IS ALWAYS WRONG

NO IT IS NEVER JUSTIFIED



Same thing happened to me. I think that might be the only reason there are so many yeses.

is rape always wrong?

there are two viewpoints. Individual and society.

people can always justify what they do. that doesn't make it right. so yes, In this day and age, rape can be justified to the individual's viewpoint, but as long as the society views rape as being 'wrong'. then it's wrong.

the moment society no longer criminalizes rape, then it won't be wrong reguardless as to what the individual thinks.

is rape always wrong?

there are two viewpoints. Individual and society.

people can always justify what they do. that doesn't make it right. so yes, In this day and age, rape can be justified to the individual's viewpoint, but as long as the society views rape as being 'wrong'. then it's wrong.

the moment society no longer criminalizes rape, then it won't be wrong reguardless as to what the individual thinks.
Bullshit.

First of all, the equivocations of criminals trying weasel out of responsibility and punishment for their actions is not the same as actually justifying those actions.

Second of all, since when are moral questions of right and wrong determined solely by what the law says at any given moment? Are you actually trying to suggest that, back in the day that the US made slavery legal, that meant that slavery was the right thing to do? Did that make all the abolitionists wrong? Did it make countries that had outlawed slavery wrong, if it was right in the US? How about Great Britain, which outlawed slavery in its own country but decided not to apply that law to its Caribbean and North American colonies so it could have cheap labor to run its plantations on? What did the British government back then think about slavery -- that it was right or that it was wrong? Your assertion creates so many conundrums that it clearly must be missing a point somewhere.

Saying that an act is wrong only if there's a law against it, and that the lack of a such a law would automatically render a wrong thing right, is the same as saying there is no such thing as a human sense or concept of right and wrong -- something that the human mind creates for itself -- and I reject such arguments because they are debunked by both history and social and psychological studies. The fact is, human beings invent ideas of right and wrong independently of laws or social constructs (that's why there are so many different concepts of right and wrong, as well as universal concepts of right and wrong). Legal systems merely react to circumstances and events within the context of those human concepts.

EDIT: So what I'm saying is that rape is wrong NOT because there are laws against it, but because it is wrong by a non-legal moral measure that humans apply when judging their own and others' actions, independent of any consideration of law.

Bullshit.

First of all, the equivocations of criminals trying weasel out of responsibility and punishment for their actions is not the same as actually justifying those actions. hence why even tho the individual can justify it to themselves, as long as society deems that action wrong, it's still wrong.

Second of all, since when are moral questions of right and wrong determined solely by what the law says at any given moment?
there are two views. Moral and Legal. the OP talks WRONG, not specifically saying Morally wrong, or Legally Wrong, but just wrong.

[snipped strawman]


Saying that an act is wrong only if there's a law against it is the same as saying there is no such thing as a human sense or concept of right and wrong -- something that the human mind creates for itself -- and I reject such arguments because they are debunked by both history and social and psychological studies. The fact is, human beings invent ideas of right and wrong independently of laws or social constructs (that's why there are so many different concepts of right and wrong, as well as universal concepts of right and wrong). Legal systems merely react to circumstances and events within the context of those human concepts.and if you actually read my post, you will see that moral concepts are indiviual viewpoints while Legal concepts are grounded in the Society.

some view homosexuality as morally wrong, yet cannot legally prevent it from occuring. some view that they can be justified in thieft yet it still is legally wrong.

so yes, some person can justify their raping of another person in their mind, yet while society views rape as being wrong, it's wrong no matter what the justification.

EDIT: So what I'm saying is that rape is wrong NOT because there are laws against it, but because it is wrong by a non-legal moral measure that humans apply when judging their own and others' actions, independent of any consideration of law. yet that moral measure is baised on the individual. that is why some people accept and support the DP while others say it's wrong.

You know I don't know how truly representative that poll is, but it scares me.

hence why even tho the individual can justify it to themselves, as long as society deems that action wrong, it's still wrong.


there are two views. Moral and Legal. the OP talks WRONG, not specifically saying Morally wrong, or Legally Wrong, but just wrong.

<snip>
Check the OP again, JuNii. The title says "wrong," but the body of the OP post says "morally justified." And if you read the whole thread, you will see that the main argument is over whether it is morally justifiable, not legal/illegal.

So the fact that laws about rape can be changed has nothing to do with the OP question or the debate of the thread, which is whether it is morally justifiable.

You know I don't know how truly representative that poll is, but it scares me.

don't hold to much to that poll. people have said they read the title "is rape always wrong" and answered the poll accordingly, not realizing the poll question is "can rape be justified".

In the situation in the OP, it would still be wrong, but some might see it as the lesser of two evils.

Check the OP again, JuNii. The title says "wrong," but the body of the OP post says "morally justified." And if you read the whole thread, you will see that the main argument is over whether it is morally justifiable, not legal/illegal.

So the fact that laws about rape can be changed has nothing to do with the OP question or the debate of the thread, which is whether it is morally justifiable.

since it's only morally justifiable that the thread focusing on. then yes, it can be morally justifiable to that individual.

people justify their wrong doings to themselves everyday. from crossing the street outside the crosswalk to theift to even murder.

and one point you're forgetting is that once legal, then people can morally justify it to themselves with the reason "it's now legal".

Yeah, so, if there's only one pair of humans left alive, the species is dicked anyway, unless one of them is an expert on the miracles of cloning. There's no point in procreating. Insufficient genetic diversity would have mankind turned into a twisted, malformed (likely sterile) bunch of inbreds in a few generations.

Personally, I'd spend the rest of my days looting liquor stores and the frozen food section of the grocery store. Set myself up with a nice penthouse in a nice city, and drink to my homie, humanity.

since it's only morally justifiable that the thread focusing on. then yes, it can be morally justifiable to that individual.

people justify their wrong doings to themselves everyday. from crossing the street outside the crosswalk to theift to even murder.

and one point you're forgetting is that once legal, then people can morally justify it to themselves with the reason "it's now legal".

id have to agree with you.

it depends on who is doing the justifying.

as we have discussed many times in the past there is not one correct morality.

sooo.... if a man has raped your daughter and your morality is "an eye for an eye" you might be completely morally justified in raping him. that its not MY morality or YOUR morality means little. he is morally justified in HIS morality.

So then what do you think of rape as a punishment for rape?

Real life isn't an episode of 24 just so you know.

That would be a tight episode.

So then what do you think of rape as a punishment for rape?

i think its a terrible idea.

If you were raped you would want the rapist to get off with a few years in jail while you are scarred for the rest of your life?

Whether rape is or is not ever morally justified (I think it is one of the worst atrocities one can commit, since it ruins the pleasure of sex for the person who got raped for possibly the rest of their life.), rape is a very human thing. When mankind was in its infancy (or its ape-like pre-state), our species lived in small groups which were headed by an alpha male. If the other males could not obtain sex, then they would leave their groups, find another group, and rape one of the women, which would end up promoting genetic diversity. Rape is not justified, but it is nevertheless human.

Think about it.

If you were raped you would want the rapist to get off with a few years in jail while you are scarred for the rest of your life?

his being raped would not lessen my scarring.

Gotta go but I'd like to mention the whole argument that if there were only one female and one male left on earth and that this meant there was not enough genetic diversity to repopulate the world, the theory of evolution is a little out of whack.

Sorry for bringing up something so off topic and I also apologize if I made any to personal 2nd person comments. I always mean to speak in general but sometimes mess up.

Gah! The question in the title and the question in the poll were reversed so I voted "yes," when I meant "no."

Gotta go but I'd like to mention the whole argument that if there were only one female and one male left on earth and that this meant there was not enough genetic diversity to repopulate the world, the theory of evolution is a little out of whack.

Sorry for bringing up something so off topic and I also apologize if I made any to personal 2nd person comments. I always mean to speak in general but sometimes mess up.

there wasnt a time in the past where there was one man and one woman. if the population of the earth were reduced to 2 member, genetic defects would kill the resulting offsprig off before evolution could kick in--or perhaps it might qualify as super fast evolution to nowhere.

perhaps it would be better to suggest a scenario where only 400 men and women still existed and every person was needed for their genetic contribution to the future.

Not that I can think of realistically, hypothetically....a few.



(Would rape be justified)

Only on Tuesdays.

No.

No.

Lack of social dating =/= rape

No.

One time I saw two male ducks fighting each other, and one duck killed the other one, and then the duck that won the fight spent about 5 minutes raping the dead duck.

But I guess most animals don't really rape each other, but their are quite a few bisexual and necrophiliac animals.

Never morally justified.

If you were raped you would want the rapist to get off with a few years in jail while you are scarred for the rest of your life?

What the victim wants has no real bearing, since they are obviously very biased.

A single woman does not provide enough long-term genetic diversity to "maintain" the species.

If we're ever down to a single woman, or a single man, we're done as a species. Period. Maybe not right away, but certainly within a couple of generations of horribly inbred descendants.

Not necessarily.

Yes there would be some genetic problems and disease that could occur, but it all depends on the alleles possessed by the two individuals who are repopulating the earth. If either has a recessive allele for a particularly dibilitating disease, then yes, there could be awful consequences, but I would argue with you and posit that in two randomly selected individuals, there probably would be enough genetic diversity to sustain a population.

if the population of the earth were reduced to 2 member, genetic defects would kill the resulting offsprig off before evolution could kick in--or perhaps it might qualify as super fast evolution to nowhere.

I disagree.

I disagree.

Why?

If the two individuals were heteroygous for many characteristics then that would turn out roses.

But even if, say, they were both carriers of sickle cell anaemia (a recessive genetic disorder), then some of their offsrping would be be completely healthy.


If H is healthy and h is sickle cell anemia, then if both parents are carriers:

Hh male

Hh female


then if they had four children the children would be:

1 hh - a sufferer
2 Hh - carriers but not sufferers
1 HH - completely healthy



If both individuals that had to repopulate the planet were both homozygous recessive, possessing both harmful alleles for many genetic diseases then it wouldn't work out very well, but if they are both randomly selected individuals then the chances of them producing a viable population, providing each couple has lots - id est more than four children - is fairly good.

Not necessarily.

Yes there would be some genetic problems and disease that could occur, but it all depends on the alleles possessed by the two individuals who are repopulating the earth. If either has a recessive allele for a particularly dibilitating disease, then yes, there could be awful consequences, but I would argue with you and posit that in two randomly selected individuals, there probably would be enough genetic diversity to sustain a population.

While genetic diversity won't kill the population on its own, it will prevent the population from adapting to any changes.

Some of the offspring will be Healthy for some disorders,
some will be Carriers,
and some will be Sufferers.

If there were large numbers of offsrping then the carriers breeding with the carriers have a good chance of producing Healthy offspring and the Healthy offsrping breeding together will definitely produce healthy offspring.

Obviously this is in reference to one characteristic, and an individual Healthy for one genetic disorder may be a Sufferer of another, but there would still be enough genetic variation for mostly Healthy offspring to pass on their mostly Healthy genes.

perhaps it would be better to suggest a scenario where only 400 men and women still existed and every person was needed for their genetic contribution to the future.

In think the minimum amount of breeding couples (that produce children that don't breed with relatives) is 512 (1024 individuals).

While genetic diversity won't kill the population on its own, it will prevent the population from adapting to any changes.

Not necessarily.


Because providing there is lots of reproduction taking place there will be enough genetic variation to adapt to environmental changes.

Of course, this would have to assume the environmental changes wouldn't be on too large a scale.

But with large numbers of offspring and high rates of reproduction, after a few generations there will be markedly more Healthy individuals and individuals markedly more suited to the environment presenting themselves.

Some of the offspring will be Healthy for some disorders,
some will be Carriers,
and some will be Sufferers.

If there were large numbers of offsrping then the carriers breeding with the carriers have a good chance of producing Healthy offspring and the Healthy offsrping breeding together will definitely produce healthy offspring.

Obviously this is in reference to one characteristic, and an individual Healthy for one genetic disorder may be a Sufferer of another, but there would still be enough genetic variation for mostly Healthy offspring to pass on their mostly Healthy genes.

And then the environment changes(which is likely, since all but two people on earth were just killed), and the organisms are all so similar that they're all affected by the change and all die.

Not necessarily.


Because providing there is lots of reproduction taking place there will be enough genetic variation to adapt to environmental changes.

Of course, this would have to assume the environmental changes wouldn't be on too large a scale.

But with large numbers of offspring and high rates of reproduction, after a few generations there will be markedly more Healthy individuals and individuals markedly more suited to the environment presenting themselves.

Except humans don't reproduce very quickly. Only one baby ever 9 months(at the absolute most) and 14-16 years before those babies reach sexual maturity. And keep in mind that something just killed all but two humans in existence, that's one damned hostile environment.

The process of Sexual Reproduction is amazingly efficient at shuffling the genes that will form the new offspring.

It is completely random which spern will fertilise which egg, and of course each sperm is different to each, or at least, the majority of the other sperm, and the same goes for eggs.

When forming eggs and sperm it is random which chromosome out of each pair in the individual is allocated to which sex cell (egg or sperm).

And when the sex cells are forming, corresponding [homologous] chromosomes - (coding for the same characteristics but usually containing different alleles for those characteristics) swap sections of themselves with each other, breaking the possibilty of linked alleles.


It is a process designed specifically to promote genetic variation, and so even when there are only two individuals left to repopulate the earth, I still think they have a good chance of pulling through.

While genetic diversity won't kill the population on its own, it will prevent the population from adapting to any changes.

You could also end up with the Cheetah situation (inbreeding depression): Low fertility, extremely high miscarriage rates, and extremely susceptible to several externally driven diseases.

For the large majority of sexually reproducing organisms inbreeding depression has a negative effect and the less original breeding members you have the worse it gets.

You'd have to not only grow a population on a large scale (in the order of 50-60 people per female) but the populations would also have to expand and be relatively isolated in order to have a hope in retaining genetic diversity across the species. Only after a large amount of time (30-80 generations) could those groups be large enough to sustain some diversity.

I disagree.

what do you disagree with and why?

im not big expert on genetics or evolution but such inbreeding seems to me to be a recipe for extinction.

The process of Sexual Reproduction is amazingly efficient at shuffling the genes that will form the new offspring.

It is completely random which spern will fertilise which egg, and of course each sperm is different to each, or at least, the majority of the other sperm, and the same goes for eggs.

When forming eggs and sperm it is random which chromosome out of each pair in the individual is allocated to which sex cell (egg or sperm).

And when the sex cells are forming, corresponding [homologous] chromosomes - (coding for the same characteristics but usually containing different alleles for those characteristics) swap sections of themselves with each other, breaking the possibilty of linked alleles.


It is a process designed specifically to promote genetic variation, and so even when there are only two individuals left to repopulate the earth, I still think they have a good chance of pulling through.

Or they'll be killed by wild animals, or lack of food and medical supplies, or whatever killed the other ~5.9 billion people on the planet. I think there best bet is to have lots of sex before they die, just because they're about to die.

I cant believe 20.00% of you think rape is justfied

IT IS NEVER JUSTIFIED

Except humans don't reproduce very quickly. Only one baby ever 9 months(at the absolute most) and 14-16 years before those babies reach sexual maturity. And keep in mind that something just killed all but two humans in existence, that's one damned hostile environment.

But if it is such an inhospitable environment that it is likely to kill the offspring then it could just as easily kill the two remaining individuals - the Adam and Eve - and so the doom of the population would be due to the environment and not due to lack of genetic variation.

If the environmental change is so grand as to kill all the human population save two, then the inability of Adam and Eve's offspring to prosper would be due to an impossible situation rather than genetic defects or lack of variation.

It is a process designed specifically to promote genetic variation, and so even when there are only two individuals left to repopulate the earth, I still think they have a good chance of pulling through.


I think that you'll find that chromosomal crossover wouldn't help as much as you think (especially for Y chromosomal based disorders). There would also be the problem of chromosomal number abnormalities (such as Down Syndrome).

You're forgetting that almost all current genetic abnormalities are recessively inherited.

It is a process designed to create new combinations but that does not increase the basic genetic diversity of the individuals; Only mutation has than honour, of which an extremely large population would be needed to gain some diversity. Humans cannot propagate themselves very quickly nor do they have extremely high mutation rates (compared to other animals).

what do you disagree with and why?

im not big expert on genetics or evolution but such inbreeding seems to me to be a recipe for extinction.

Read my posts and you will see.



And the awful consequences of inbreeding tend to be exaggerated in our preconceptions because the only examples of inbreeding we hear about are the ones where it has led to dire situations, such as Haemophilia in the Russian Royal Family in the 19th century.

We don't hear about the cases where it turned out alright.

Remember for the cases of Haemophilia to occur in the family, it had to start with two individuals who were carriers of the disorder breeding with each other - which, given the infrequency of the faulty Haemophiliac allele is quite an unlikely and unusual event to have happened.

And remember even in the case of this family, where Haemophilia seemed to be prevalent, in only three generations of breeding and inbreeding there were some Sufferer offspring but MORE Healthy offspring than there were Sufferers!

And if our Adam and Eve are chosen randomly from the population, it is quite unlikely that they would be carriers of sufferers. And even if one of them were a Carrier, although some offspring would also be Carriers, most would be Healthy, and the Healthy ones could breed together to promote the prevalence of the Healthy allele.

In think the minimum amount of breeding couples (that produce children that don't breed with relatives) is 512 (1024 individuals).

does that assume exclusive pair bonding?

And in the event of a lack of medical supplies and such, the offspring possessing unhealthy alleles will have a high infant mortality rate, and so the offspring who survive to pass on their genes are those who are healthiest.

a large number of those votes were mistakes.

the rest were thinking of some bizarre unrealistic circumstance.

True if anything it's the fault of the person who made the poll, to clear up which option meant which. And doubtless some folks clicked by accident, and others for a joke.
So i'd read that as only 5% on the extreme circumstances justify rape.

But if it is such an inhospitable environment that it is likely to kill the offspring then it could just as easily kill the two remaining individuals - the Adam and Eve - and so the doom of the population would be due to the environment and not due to lack of genetic variation.

If the environmental change is so grand as to kill all the human population save two, then the inability of Adam and Eve's offspring to prosper would be due to an impossible situation rather than genetic defects or lack of variation.

well thats true.

likelihood is that if they didnt starve to death, or eat something poisonous, or get in an accident that crippled one of them, eve would die in childbirth.

I cant believe 20.00% of you think rape is justfied

IT IS NEVER JUSTIFIED

a large number of those votes were mistakes.

the rest were thinking of some bizarre unrealistic circumstance.

Reposting due to timewarp.

You could also end up with the Cheetah situation (inbreeding depression): Low fertility, extremely high miscarriage rates, and extremely susceptible to several externally driven diseases.

For the large majority of sexually reproducing organisms inbreeding depression has a negative effect and the less original breeding members you have the worse it gets.

You'd have to not only grow a population on a large scale (in the order of 50-60 people per female) but the populations would also have to expand and be relatively isolated in order to have a hope in retaining genetic diversity across the species. Only after a large amount of time (30-80 generations) could those groups be large enough to sustain some diversity.

Quoted myself because of the timewarp.

does that assume exclusive pair bonding?

I think so.

And the awful consequences of inbreeding tend to be exaggerated in our preconceptions because the only examples of inbreeding we hear about are the ones where it has led to dire situations, such as Haemophilia in the Russian Royal Family in the 19th century.

There is also the Hapsburg Chin if you want european royal family examples...

There are also the (formerly) high rate of Tay Sachs (only cured because the number of Tay Sachs carriers was very much a minority) and blood disorders of the Amish.

Don't forget that the european royal families actually had a large number of breeding partners as they could draw from not only the ruling family but any relatives (up to 5th cousins), seperate aristocratic families (which were much more significant both in marriages and in population size) and even the rarity of breeding with some of the intellectual/merchant elite.

We don't hear about the cases where it turned out alright.

Such as...

Remember for the cases of Haemophilia to occur in the family, it had to start with two individuals who were carriers of the disorder breeding with each other - which, given the infrequency of the faulty Haemophiliac allele is quite an unlikely and unusual event to have happened.

And remember even in the case of this family, where Haemophilia seemed to be prevalent, in only three generations of breeding and inbreeding there were some Sufferer offspring but MORE Healthy offspring than there were Sufferers!

What family are you talking about?

And if our Adam and Eve are chosen randomly from the population, it is quite unlikely that they would be carriers of sufferers. And even if one of them were a Carrier, although some offspring would also be Carriers, most would be Healthy, and the Healthy ones could breed together to promote the prevalence of the Healthy allele.

That is assuming that a carrier is more fit than a non-carrier.

Yet you would not only need a population greater than 2 in order to avoid inbreeding depression and chromosomal abnormalities (which tend to occur in inbred/purebred groups).

And the awful consequences of inbreeding tend to be exaggerated in our preconceptions because the only examples of inbreeding we hear about are the ones where it has led to dire situations, such as Haemophilia in the Russian Royal Family in the 19th century.

We don't hear about the cases where it turned out alright.

The process of inbreeding can have beneficial outcomes... in the short term. In the long term simply too much alleles that are harmful in homozygous state become fixed. Examples abound, see the Florida Panther and the California Condor.

Remember for the cases of Haemophilia to occur in the family, it had to start with two individuals who were carriers of the disorder breeding with each other - which, given the infrequency of the faulty Haemophiliac allele is quite an unlikely and unusual event to have happened.

Not true. Only the female needs to be a carrier, and will suffer no ill efefcts from being one. Males are irrelevant in this aspect (x-linked recessive). Btw, haemophilia in the Russian royal family starts with Victoria, and her being a carrier is (with high probability) due to a mutation.

And remember even in the case of this family, where Haemophilia seemed to be prevalent, in only three generations of breeding and inbreeding there were some Sufferer offspring but MORE Healthy offspring than there were Sufferers!

A pure game of chance.

And if our Adam and Eve are chosen randomly from the population, it is quite unlikely that they would be carriers of sufferers.

Why? Human genomes abound with alleles that are beneficial in heterozygosity and harmful in homozygosity.

And even if one of them were a Carrier, although some offspring would also be Carriers, most would be Healthy, and the Healthy ones could breed together to promote the prevalence of the Healthy allele.

Again, a game of chance, an outcome of more healthy ones os by no means set.

Basically, it comes down to this. For a species, the chances to survive when reduced to one breeding pair are not good. You would need an uncanny stable environment. No changes in climate, no nasty illnesses... Proliferate breeding would be necessary, but would also pose great risks. Human survivability is coupled to the number of offspring. Have lots of kids, die young(er). Added problem are demographics. Reduced to the most severe bottle neck (one breeding pair) also means that every generation is about the same age, reducing the effective population size.

Since I appear to be sounding a little like a eugenecist at the moment I think I should clarify.

I do not advocate eugenic measures and I hold the Sanctity of Life incredibly important. I oppose designer-babies and other such measures.

In vitro fertilisation for the most part I do not have a problem with. I think it is absolutely incredible that we can give people the chance to have children who would not normally.

What I oppose is the destruction of human life, even if it is a single-celled zygote or an embryo. I believe life begins at fertilisation.


I do not advocate choosing your child's characteristics.


Bear in mind the context i am talking in. This is a disaster scenario and not an everyday occurrence.

Even in this Adam and Eve hypothetical, I would think it inhumane to try and dispose of the unhealthy offspring. What I mean is that the Healthier offspring should be encouraged to have more children than usual. But the offspring who are unhealthy should reproduce also, to maintain genetic variation.

A good example is that Carriers of Sickle Cell Anaemia tend to have more of a resistance to Malaria. So it should not be the aim to eliminate genes from the population - more to build up larger numbers of healthy offspring.

So, NSers, is rape ever morally justified?

No, just no.

And incidentally in this Adam and Eve scenario I would advocate that an individual breeds with more than one other individual.

The natural human response however is to form exclusive partnerships and I would not discourage this. Couples should not be separated by others.

Each offspring should be raised in a loving home by its mother and her husband.


The value of the culture would be that for men, your sons and daughters are your sons and daughters because they were born from your wife. If they are biologically the offspring of a different individual with your wife you still raise them as your child.

Thus genetic variation within the population is maintained, and each child is raised in a stable home.

Marriages are monogamous emotionally but not sexually.

This would be at first, when the population is at very low numbers.

Of course, this isn't ideal, and when the population has grown to a suitable size then sexually monogamous marriages will be more common as the population is large enough to maintain genetic variation.

It's an idea.

Of course, for the first lot of generations, incest would be the only option, but when the population has reached a suitable size, the values and attitudes towards this would move more towards those we have today - illum est - that it is frowned upon.

True, but as the numbers build up and as polygamy is present the rate can be increased.
But it would certainly take a while to get it started.
If Adam and Eve were say...20 years old.
By the time Cain and Arabella reach breeding age (which we shall call 16 for the purposes of simplicity) Adam and Eve will be 37.
However Adam and Eve will have produced more than two offspring and so let's say the second generation contains four children - Cain, Arabella and two others.
If both females (assuming there are two) produce four children each tne the third generation has eight children. And each child has the same two parents in common with only one other child.
Thus there is variation already and there are now eight offspring to breed with each other.
As the offspring will all be of differing ages, in time the new generations will become less and less clearly defined, and so due to differing ages a new child could be born every year, possibly even less.
But yes, it would take many years to properly get it going.

Are you saying the Adam and Eve story is plausable? (ie Practical explanation for human life evolving from a small number of people)

Are you saying the story is true? (ie Religiously)

Got any proof of how this is so?

Also in this post you're assuming none of them suffer from disease, or attack and have enough resources nearby.

Except humans don't reproduce very quickly. Only one baby ever 9 months(at the absolute most) and 14-16 years before those babies reach sexual maturity.


True, but as the numbers build up and as polygamy is present the rate can be increased.

But it would certainly take a while to get it started.

If Adam and Eve were say...20 years old.

By the time Cain and Arabella reach breeding age (which we shall call 16 for the purposes of simplicity) Adam and Eve will be 37.

However Adam and Eve will have produced more than two offspring and so let's say the second generation contains four children - Cain, Arabella and two others.

If both females (assuming there are two) produce four children each tne the third generation has eight children. And each child has the same two parents in common with only one other child.

Thus there is variation already and there are now eight offspring to breed with each other.

As the offspring will all be of differing ages, in time the new generations will become less and less clearly defined, and so due to differing ages a new child could be born every year, possibly even less.




But yes, it would take many years to properly get it going.

I can't think of a realistic situation where rape would not be utterly morally wrong. Obviously, there are a billion unrealistic thought-experiments where this position could possibly be challenged, but I've yet to ever encounter or hear of a time when rape was an acceptable option.

What if civilization collapses after the ozone layer goes away, and only black people will ultimately survive in the rays of the sun, and you're the only black man left on earth with the only black woman, and you can build shelters for the white people to survive in, but only black people can patch holes in the exterior of the shelter, so you need to reproduce black people in order to save the white people, and the only way to do that is through rape? So by raping, you ultimately save millions of lives?



In relation to the original question "Is rape always wrong" the answer is of course yes.

As Vetalia has stated, you could come up with a million different bizarre hypotheticals where it would be 'morally justified'. This is well illustrated by Tongass's odd situation.

You can potentially make any unethical and dispicable action 'morally justified'.

For example - If a genie, or a talking comet, or whatever came to you and told you that you either had to rape someone or they (the genie/comet) would kill every human being on the planet, then of course you would be 'morally justified' in raping the person.

So in normal circumstances of course rape is not justifiable.

The prison sentences should be a hell of a lot longer too.

I don't see anything morally wrong with incest. In New Zealand, where I live, the Ministry of Justice proposed legalising it a few years ago on the ground that criminalising it breached human rights - sexual relations between consenting adults should not be prohibited. Unfortunately, the politicians shelved it because it is a bit of a touchy subject. I read that it has been held in the United States that criminalising it is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court said that consensual adult sexual activity was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment (in Lawrence v. Texas, where a statute criminalising sodomy was struck down).

since it's only morally justifiable that the thread focusing on. then yes, it can be morally justifiable to that individual.

people justify their wrong doings to themselves everyday. from crossing the street outside the crosswalk to theift to even murder.

and one point you're forgetting is that once legal, then people can morally justify it to themselves with the reason "it's now legal".
I dispute that because I believe that, in the vast majority of cases where people commit basic crimes, like rape, and then make up "justifications" for their actions after the fact, they are knowingly and deliberately lying about their own views on what they did. You see this in the case of nations at war where rape is used as a terroristic attack against civilian populations. When exposed, the authorities who condone such crimes will claim moral justification for it, but until they are exposed, they will go to great lengths to deny that they had any part in it, or even that it happened -- even though they are still in charge of their own nations and/or armies and cannot be punished for their crimes. In the absence of a clear, pre-existing moral philosophy that justifies such action, there is no reason to believe that an individual claiming such justification after the fact is not merely telling a self-serving lie, either to avoid punishment or to smooth over the fact that he knows he did something morally wrong.

Even in the case of "it's now legal" (which I did not forget; rather I rejected it), the justification is a false one because, regardless of what the law says, the rapist knows that his action is wrong on a moral level. People who need to claim the law as a justification for their actions are doing things they personally believe to be wrong -- i.e. something they will be held answerable for and will need to justify somehow. Otherwise, they would feel no need to appeal to the law as giving them permission.

What I oppose is the destruction of human life, even if it is a single-celled zyote or an embryo. I believe life begins at fertilisation.

Technically life has never started in that case. You could have an argument about preventing abortions if a mass, human only, extinction event occurred but not really in modern life. We are consuming resources at a rate that in not tenable with our current population. In our case we can regulate our population for the benefit of the species (in a way we, the group animals, are socially regulating our population) and prevent overextending our population.

Usually an group's population is reduced due to members dieing from lack of food/shelter or they consume so much that the entire group dies out or has a much reduced population that heads off somewhere else

If course initiatives to promote every member/couple to have a child would be preferable, in order to retain genetic variation.

Are you saying the Adam and Eve story is plausable? (ie Practical explanation for human life evolving from a small number of people)

Are you saying the story is true? (ie Religiously)

Got any proof of how this is so?


>>>Do I believe the story of Adam and Eve is true?

No.

I believe life as we know it came about through evolution.

>>>Am I a Christian?

Yes.

I easily believe in both God and evolution and the big bang.

I do not believe you have to choose either Science or God - one or the other. They are not mutually exclusive.

I adore both Spirituality and Science.

For those who try and use Science to disprove God I say

-It's just as impossible to PROVE that God exists as it is to prove that he doesn't. The whole point of religion is that you can't prove it. That's why it's called FAITH.

-Plus, the likelihood of everything on earth, and all this incredible bounteous life to form by mere chance is like a tornado sweeping over a scrapyard and rearranging the metal into a perfectly formed Bentley. It's possible of course, but the chances are so minute that it is logical to assume that there is some form of guiding power or being.

For those who try and use God to disprove Science I say

-To posit that God cannot work THROUGH Science is like limiting him, and surely you believe in an omnipotent God?

Also in this post you're assuming none of them suffer from disease


Yes I am.


If one or both of the couple were Sufferers of many genetic diseases then surivival of the population would be difficult.


However as I have stated before, if the post-nuclear-holocaust Adam and Eve were chosen randomly from the human population then there is a high likelihood that they will be mostly free of genetic diseases.



If they had non-genetic diseases - for example one of them had tuberculosis and died then obviously the population would die. But this is simply due to shit luck and not due to a lack of genetic variation, which was the matter in dispute about the 'Whole Population from Two People' discussion.

id have to agree with you.

it depends on who is doing the justifying.

as we have discussed many times in the past there is not one correct morality.

sooo.... if a man has raped your daughter and your morality is "an eye for an eye" you might be completely morally justified in raping him. that its not MY morality or YOUR morality means little. he is morally justified in HIS morality.
Actually, my view is a little more complicated.

I do not believe that people need justifications for things unless there is some doubt as to their rightness. So, one might have to justify the morality of one's actions to other people, if those others question your moral choice. You may have 100% certainty that what you're doing is right under your own moral code, but you may have to justify it to other people coming from other moral codes.

But if you need to justify your actions to yourself, then I take that as a strong indicator that you yourself doubt the rightness of your own actions. If that is the case, then I say any such justification is a false one, because it is something that you do not sincerely believe.

Also, anyone who has to appeal to an outside authority, such as the law, to justify their action by merely giving them permission to do it, is indicating to me that they themselves have no justification for it under their own moral code -- i.e. that they think it is wrong but chose to do it anyway for a self-serving reason and because they won't get punished for it.

Also in this post you're assuming none of them suffer from attack and have enough resources nearby.


Again, yes I am.

And if they died for these reasons it would be due to these reasons and not the inability of two people to promote enough genetic variation to sustain a population.

So then what do you think of rape as a punishment for rape?
I think rape is never justified.

If you were raped you would want the rapist to get off with a few years in jail while you are scarred for the rest of your life?
My suffering will not be relieved by lowering myself to the same level as the one who wronged me. That is not the kind of revenge that would satisfy me.

Not true. Only the female needs to be a carrier, and will suffer no ill efefcts from being one. Males are irrelevant in this aspect (x-linked recessive). Btw, haemophilia in the Russian royal family starts with Victoria, and her being a carrier is (with high probability) due to a mutation.

Yes, that was my mistake.

A pure game of chance.

Again, a game of chance, an outcome of more healthy ones os by no means set.



Yes, but by breeding you are playing the game. The more times you roll the dice the better chances you have of rolling fives and sixes.

And of course it could be that misfortune prevails and only Sufferer offspring are produced, or even that only one gender is produced, so you are right, there is a huge amount of chance involved for the Adam and Eve scheme to work.

>>>Do I believe the story of Adam and Eve is true?
No.
I believe life as we know it came about through evolution.
>>>Am I a Christian?
Yes.
I easily believe in both God and evolution and the big bang.
I do not believe you have to choose either Science or God - one or the other. They are not mutually exclusive.
I adore both Spirituality and Science.
For those who try and use Science to disprove God I say
-It's just as impossible to PROVE that God exists as it is to prove that he doesn't. The whole point of religion is that you can't prove it. That's why it's called FAITH.
-Plus, the likelihood of everything on earth, and all this incredible bounteous life to form by mere chance is like a tornado sweeping over a scrapyard and rearranging the metal into a perfectly formed Bentley. It's possible of course, but the chances are so minute that it is logical to assume that there is some form of guiding power or being.
For those who try and use God to disprove Science I say
-To posit that God cannot work THROUGH Science is like limiting him, and surely you believe in an omnipotent God?

Might i ask what form of Christianity you follow?
I know it's not my place to say what other people should believe, but i have a few ideas about the idea of a God, however i'm aware this would derail the thread a little bit.
True Evolution and a God can work, no reason why they can't. So in my response i try to avoid using science to disprove God.
However it's disputable if there is a God Christian or otherwise.
E.g. If there is a God why let bad things happen? (i suppose a response could be God is cruel and hates us)

Or a better one is what created God?

If God is eternal, why can't the universe also be eternal?

If human purpose is to aspire to go to heaven, then what is God's purpose?

Also looking around this planet what inferences can you draw from there being a creator? It's not as if he's advertising (assuming God has a sex if so why?) his existance.

I could argue the belief of a God was used as a control on populations to stop the poorer classes from waking up from their oppressors, by saying "look we know you've had a rough run of it but if you pray enough you get to go to heaven, sure the pope is aristochratic and the church has huge swathes of land but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist (it just means the Pope doesn't interpret his own teachings). Now be a good worker and don't complain of what i do because God wills it".

However your design argument. -Plus, the likelihood of everything on earth, and all this incredible bounteous life to form by mere chance is like a tornado sweeping over a scrapyard and rearranging the metal into a perfectly formed Bentley. It's possible of course, but the chances are so minute that it is logical to assume that there is some form of guiding power or being.
Can be logically flawed it's inferring that because something is a certain way it ought to have been created by something truely great.

Of course there's Descartes argument that our sense experience tricks us and all that is true is "I am, I exist", which says that our experience of the world could be utterly false, thus the idea of a God could also be false, just a way to stop you going crazy.
Of course again you could critise Descartes argument by saying, he doesn't really tell us anything at all, and denying existance of everything is self defeating.

Also assuming all my above points can be falsified, the idea that humans have a purpose because there's a nice guy in the sky who will give you a nice afterlife is an appeals to the consequences, another fallacy. That's not real proof.
Personally i'm not sure if there is a God, i know there's good arguments for a God and good arguments against a God, but no conclusive proof.

Now this leads to the next development, if there is no God you can still have Morality, Morality does not rely on God (i'll give you my reasons for why if you want but i'll leave that out for the moment to reduce confusion).

Why? Human genomes abound with alleles that are beneficial in heterozygosity and harmful in homozygosity.


Yes. What I should have said was that if our Adam and Eve were randomly selected from the population there is a good chance that neither will be homozygous recessive for particularly dibilitating genetic disorders.

My suffering will not be relieved by lowering myself to the same level as the one who wronged me. That is not the kind of revenge that would satisfy me.

That's what I have against the death penalty.

I believe it brings the executors bown to the same level as the murderer.

I think Capital Punishment is just inhumane and immoral.

That's what I have against the death penalty.

I believe it brings the executors bown to the same level as the murderer.

I think Capital Punishment is just inhumane and immoral.
I agree, though I would not like to pursue our areas of agreement too far off topic just now, because I disagree with parts of your stated views about the "Sanctity of Life." As I say, I'd rather stay on topic.

I dispute that because I believe that, in the vast majority of cases where people commit basic crimes, like rape, and then make up "justifications" for their actions after the fact, they are knowingly and deliberately lying about their own views on what they did. You see this in the case of nations at war where rape is used as a terroristic attack against civilian populations. When exposed, the authorities who condone such crimes will claim moral justification for it, but until they are exposed, they will go to great lengths to deny that they had any part in it, or even that it happened -- even though they are still in charge of their own nations and/or armies and cannot be punished for their crimes. In the absence of a clear, pre-existing moral philosophy that justifies such action, there is no reason to believe that an individual claiming such justification after the fact is not merely telling a self-serving lie, either to avoid punishment or to smooth over the fact that he knows he did something morally wrong.

Even in the case of "it's now legal" (which I did not forget; rather I rejected it), the justification is a false one because, regardless of what the law says, the rapist knows that his action is wrong on a moral level. People who need to claim the law as a justification for their actions are doing things they personally believe to be wrong -- i.e. in need of justification. Otherwise, they would feel no need to appeal to the law as giving them permission.

ah, but the thing is, if one is talking Morals, it only deals with the individual.

once you pull in others like "the Authorities" then you are talking socal viewpoint in which it can be argued that socal morals (as opposed to individual ones) is defined by the laws society sets up (which was what I was trying to say earlier.) hence your use of crime and punishment and putting his justification up against the law.

For instance, Randy Rapist (we'll use the common justification of "she was asking for it") can justify his actions to himself baised on his morals. however once another person(s) is pulled in (you and me as part of the jury) then we move beyond individual moral justification for one simple reason, his morals would be different than yours and mine. thus whatever justification he felt was morally sound (to him) would be measured up against what society has set up (law). Reguardless on when he justified it to himself, once others are brought into the situation (case) it ceases to be an Individual concern and becomes a concern for society.

now if, for some odd and far fetched reason, the law made rape legal, it would still be up to the individual and their morals to justify it to themselves (even tho it would be easier to do so.)

Alcohol consumption is legal after a certain age. Yet I choose not to partake of Alcohol because to my morals, it's not right for me. Same with Cigarette smoking.

ah, but the thing is, if one is talking Morals, it only deals with the individual.

once you pull in others like "the Authorities" then you are talking socal viewpoint in which it can be argued that socal morals (as opposed to individual ones) is defined by the laws society sets up (which was what I was trying to say earlier.) hence your use of crime and punishment and putting his justification up against the law.

For instance, Randy Rapist (we'll use the common justification of "she was asking for it") can justify his actions to himself baised on his morals. however once another person(s) is pulled in (you and me as part of the jury) then we move beyond individual moral justification for one simple reason, his morals would be different than yours and mine. thus whatever justification he felt was morally sound (to him) would be measured up against what society has set up (law). Reguardless on when he justified it to himself, once others are brought into the situation (case) it ceases to be an Individual concern and becomes a concern for society.

now if, for some odd and far fetched reason, the law made rape legal, it would still be up to the individual and their morals to justify it to themselves (even tho it would be easier to do so.)

Alcohol consumption is legal after a certain age. Yet I choose not to partake of Alcohol because to my morals, it's not right for me. Same with Cigarette smoking.
You are missing what I'm saying. It is my view that morals belong to and come from the individual. On that we agree.

It is also my view that mere legality or illegality is not enough to render an action moral or immoral. I think we agree on that, because I'm guessing that you do not feel like you are going against social morals by choosing not to drink, even though drinking is legal. However, I do not believe that the law necessarily expresses social morals, at least not directly. The law may be formed according to certain commonly held moral viewpoints, but the law strives for objectivity as much as possible, and that cannot be gotten from morality, which as you point out, is personal to individuals. Therefore, morality and legality diverge at least as much or more than they overlap. The fact that a thing is legal does not imply that is the moral thing to do. Legal justification and moral justification are two different things.

Finally, it is also my view that the person offering the individual moral justification for certain actions is most likely lying about his own beliefs about his actions. He does not actually believe his actions are morally right, even by his own personal moral code. This can be seen in examining the person and his life and seeing if (a) he has a pre-existing moral code that justifies his behavior (if not, then he is lying about moral justifications after the fact), and (b) if his actions give clear indicators that he feels guilty about what he did. A person does not typically show evidence of guilt if he thinks what he did was right. In the vast majority of instances, criminals do exhibit signs of guilt in relation to their crimes (one such sign is the constant presentation of excuses and justifications for their actions, referring back to my comment that people who are certain they did the right thing do not typically look for justifications for themselves).

You are missing what I'm saying. It is my view that morals belong to and come from the individual. On that we agree.

It is also my view that mere legality or illegality is not enough to render an action moral or immoral. I think we agree on that, because I'm guessing that you do not feel like you are going against social morals by choosing not to drink, even though drinking is legal. However, I do not believe that the law necessarily expresses social morals, at least not directly. The law may be formed according to certain commonly held moral viewpoints, but the law strives for objectivity as much as possible, and that cannot be gotten from morality, which as you point out, is personal to individuals. Therefore, morality and legality diverge at least as much or more than they overlap. The fact that a thing is legal does not imply that is the moral thing to do. Legal justification and moral justification are two different things. agreed to the point where further discussion is rather... pointless.

Finally, it is also my view that the person offering the individual moral justification for certain actions is most likely lying about his own beliefs about his actions. He does not actually believe his actions are morally right, even by his own personal moral code. This can be seen in examining the person and his life and seeing if (a) he has a pre-existing moral code that justifies his behavior (if not, then he is lying about moral justifications after the fact), and (b) if his actions give clear indicators that he feels guilty about what he did. A person does not typically show evidence of guilt if he thinks what he did was right. In the vast majority of instances, criminals do exhibit signs of guilt in relation to their crimes (one such sign is the constant presentation of excuses and justifications for their actions, referring back to my comment that people who are certain they did the right thing do not typically look for justifications for themselves). "Vast Majority" yet the question is "Can Rape be morally justified?" not "Can every instance of Rape be morally justified" so even you allow that there is the possibility that one person can see his/her action of rape being morally justified in their mind (which is not to say "right" or "wrong" in their mind.)

also "one such sign is the constant presentation of excuses and justifications for their actions, referring back to my comment that people who are certain they did the right thing do not typically look for justifications for themselves." so what is that. if they give a reason, they're lying?

"I shot that man in self defense" does that mean that the shooter is lying since he/she is presenting their justification for killing someone?

now if the justification for their action keeps changing, then yes, I can see your point, but if it doesn't change, then you can't say they're lying about their justification.

(btw, one's moral justification doesn't mean what they did was right or wrong, legal or illegal, just that to their mind, they had a good reason to do what they did.)

Ahem.

You sicko pervert, rape is always wrong. There is never any situation where rape would not be wrong. How could you even ask that question?

I could argue this through rationally, however I don't think that's necessary. I can't believe seemingly sensible people are actually arguing this out.

Forcing another person to act against his/her will is always immoral.

Ahem.

You sicko pervert, rape is always wrong. There is never any situation where rape would not be wrong. How could you even ask that question?

I could argue this through rationally, however I don't think that's necessary. I can't believe seemingly sensible people are actually arguing this out.

haha, well said.

agreed to the point where further discussion is rather... pointless.

"Vast Majority" yet the question is "Can Rape be morally justified?" not "Can every instance of Rape be morally justified"

<snip>
Well, duh. Obviously, the OP is asking for our opinions about a very general topic, not for some argument that would allow or disallow other people's opinions. What I mean is, the OP is not asking us to discredit other people's opinions, but merely to state our own.

It is my opinion that rape cannot ever be morally justified under any circumstance. Therefore, obviously, I will not be interested in hearing rapists' attempts to morally justify it.

As for whether I would believe they sincerely believe their own justifications, I was trying to tell you that I would not take their word for it, but would compare their proffered justifications to their actions and their personal history. If I found a discrepancy that indicated they didn't hold that view before they got caught raping people, I would conclude that they are lying about their justifications in an attempt to prevent or reduce punishment.

Considering my view on the subject, it is extremely unlikely that any rapist would be able to convince me that he sincerely believed his own justifications, unless I believed him to be mentally ill. And even if I did believe it, I would not care.

But that is in the context of real life. In the context of this thread, if anyone else thinks that rape can be morally justified is not really relevant to my view that rape cannot be morally justified. The reason I attacked your original statement was on the grounds that, as originally written (not including later clarifications), it equated "legal" with "moral" and it seemed to assume that a person saying they have a moral justification is proof that such a justification exists, as if the person would never lie about that.

My argument against yours was that legal =/= moral, so "it's legal now" does not qualify as a moral justification, and that people lie about their motives and justifications all the time, so a person just saying "my action was morally justifiable" is not proof that it actually is.

(btw, one's moral justification doesn't mean what they did was right or wrong, legal or illegal, just that to their mind, they had a good reason to do what they did.)
No, actually, for a justification to be a moral one, it has to be that the person thinks the action was morally right according to their beliefs about right and wrong.

If they just had a good reason to do it, that might be a pragmatic justification, but it in no way implies that the action is moral. I mean, people have "good reasons" to commit crimes, but that doesn't make it moral to be a criminal.

I think rape is okay if you capture a city after a long drawn out battle...soldiers have to rape, pillage, loot and burn something...just like the good old days...not like you young people today with your "Geneva Conventions" and your "Human Rights"....

*invades the USA with army of Heavy Horse Archers*
*pillages city of Buffalo*
*runs*

:p

Yes. Using force to obtain sex is always wrong.

Force yes. But what about The Force?

"These aren't the droids you're looking for.... and take off your top"

Yes. Using force to obtain sex is always wrong.

There are certain things that while abhorrant in normal circumstances or situations(taking a human life, stealing and yes, rape) that can be acceptable and justifible though perhaps still immoral in certain extreme circumstances.

There are certain things that while abhorrant in normal circumstances or situations(taking a human life, stealing and yes, rape) that can be acceptable and justifible though perhaps still immoral in certain extreme circumstances.

There are no circumstances under which rape becomes either acceptable or justifiable. Yes several hypothetical situations have been posed, they fail.

Yes. Rape is always wrong.

Rape is always wrong.

Rape is always wrong.

I'm not reading this thread because anyone arguing that rape is sometimes OK is going to make me blow a blood vessel.

There are no circumstances under which rape becomes either acceptable or justifiable. Yes several hypothetical situations have been posed, they fail.

Why?

What if someone orders you to 'Go to Hell' and the only way you can do it is by simultaneously raping someone and jumping off a large building?

What then?
No counter arguments?

I didn't think so.

Yes. Rape is always wrong.

Rape is always wrong.

Rape is always wrong.

I'm not reading this thread because anyone arguing that rape is sometimes OK is going to make me blow a blood vessel.

seconded

One time I saw two male ducks fighting each other, and one duck killed the other one, and then the duck that won the fight spent about 5 minutes raping the dead duck.

But I guess most animals don't really rape each other, but their are quite a few bisexual and necrophiliac animals.I don't think this is normal duck behavior, and it's not really rape if one of them is dead. Ducks can't really rape anything because they're ducks. It's silly to say this proves rape is part of the natural order of things. I think the only animals that rape are intelligent animals such as dolphins. Dolphins commit gang-rape. Intelligence animals are the only animals that can commit violence for the sake of violence, instead of for purposes of survival. Rape doesn't have to do with survival, it's a dominance thing.

No, the terrorist commits murder (or more likely someone from his organization does). By not raping him you refuse to commit a crime.

Crime or not, you still made a decision that you knew would result in many people dying, which makes you morally culpable, and the morality of the act is what's being debated.

In response to the first post, no, rape is not justifiable in any realistic situation. Any situation at all, really.

A better question: is it rape if they're asking for it?

This is honestly not something I don't throw around often, but I was raped at one point. NO. There is nothing, no situation, no reasoning, no justification, nothing, at all, ever, that could justify doing that to someone. Nothing can ever explain away inflicting that kind of pain and long-term humiliation on another human being.

This is honestly not something I don't throw around often, but I was raped at one point. NO. There is nothing, no situation, no reasoning, no justification, nothing, at all, ever, that could justify doing that to someone. Nothing can ever explain away inflicting that kind of pain and long-term humiliation on another human being.

My condolences, and I agree with you. I hope they caught the swine.

Crime or not, you still made a decision that you knew would result in many people dying, which makes you morally culpable, and the morality of the act is what's being debated.

No, the terrorist is morally culpable. Forcing me to choose between raping someone or terrorists murdering other people does not make me morally culpable for their deaths.

No, the terrorist is morally culpable. Forcing me to choose between raping someone or terrorists murdering other people does not make me morally culpable for their deaths.Why are the terrorists morally culpable for the consequences of their decisions but not you yours?

I think rape is okay if you capture a city after a long drawn out battle...soldiers have to rape, pillage, loot and burn something...just like the good old days...not like you young people today with your "Geneva Conventions" and your "Human Rights"....

*invades the USA with army of Heavy Horse Archers*
*pillages city of Buffalo*
*runs*

:p
I don't think anybody will miss Buffalo (I'm assuming you mean Buffalo, NY). That's certainly one instance where rape is justified.

Last woman on the planet. If she's some kind of retard and doesn't want to continue the human race, then rape is fine.

Last woman on the planet. If she's some kind of retard and doesn't want to continue the human race, then rape is fine.
Rape is okay if the victim is too stupid to understand what is happening?

Why are the terrorists morally culpable for the consequences of their decisions but not you yours?

Because the terrorists are the ones murdering, not me. The terrorist have put me in a position where I have to make a choice between two evils. I would feel guilt & remorse about the choice I would have to make, but I would not be morally culpable.

Because the terrorists are the ones murdering, not me. The terrorist have put me in a position where I have to make a choice between two evils. I would feel guilt & remorse about the choice I would have to make, but I would not be morally culpable.And you don't have any moral responsibility to choose the far lesser of two evils? If the president has to make a choice that leaves either a few people dead (missiles to a terrorist camp w/ a little civilian collateral damage) or thousands of people dead (letting terrorist camps train Al Qaeda operatives for future 9/11s) and he chooses the former (don't take out the terrorists), isn't that president guilty of something heinous?

Actually, my view is a little more complicated.

I do not believe that people need justifications for things unless there is some doubt as to their rightness. So, one might have to justify the morality of one's actions to other people, if those others question your moral choice. You may have 100% certainty that what you're doing is right under your own moral code, but you may have to justify it to other people coming from other moral codes.

But if you need to justify your actions to yourself, then I take that as a strong indicator that you yourself doubt the rightness of your own actions. If that is the case, then I say any such justification is a false one, because it is something that you do not sincerely believe.

Also, anyone who has to appeal to an outside authority, such as the law, to justify their action by merely giving them permission to do it, is indicating to me that they themselves have no justification for it under their own moral code -- i.e. that they think it is wrong but chose to do it anyway for a self-serving reason and because they won't get punished for it.

good analysis. i cant disagree with it except to say that it might be that someone who engages in "revenge rape" or any other heinous act might not feel the need to justify it to the rest of the world at all. he would still be morally justified within his own (wrong to us) moral code.

I voted yes by mistake.... rape is NEVER justified... it's one of the wost crimes a person can commit :mad:

There are certain things that while abhorrant in normal circumstances or situations(taking a human life, stealing and yes, rape) that can be acceptable and justifible though perhaps still immoral in certain extreme circumstances.
Moral and immoral are mutually exclusive conditions. If you are a moral person then you do not do thing you think are immoral. You cannot say that, under certain circumstances, you think it would be "acceptable" to act immorally and still be a moral person.

If you think that under some circumstances it is okay to rape people, then you are a rapist just waiting for your opportunity. That does not qualify you to be called a moral person, imo. But it does make you a hypocrite.

A better question: is it rape if they're asking for it?

I sure hope you were trying to be funny. You failed horribly, but if you're serious that makes it 100 times worse.

good analysis. i cant disagree with it except to say that it might be that someone who engages in "revenge rape" or any other heinous act might not feel the need to justify it to the rest of the world at all. he would still be morally justified within his own (wrong to us) moral code.

As I explained to JuNii, I am not interested in examining the thought processes of other people on this. I am only presenting and explaining my own opinion and thought process in answer to the OP. So I acknowledge that there are people who have a thought process that allows them to justify rape in their own minds, but MY thought process rejects their arguments, so no matter what they say, I will respond with the arguments I presented here. It's not so much to prove that their thinking is faulty (even though I think it is). Rather, I am just explaining why their arguments mean nothing to me and will not influence my reactions to them.

So, someone else might say they can justify rape under their moral code. My answer will always be, "Well I don't operate under your moral code, and under my moral code, your justifications are bullshit."

Remember, the OP question is not "Can rape be morally justified?", as in "Is it possible to construct some kind of moral justification for it?"

The OP question is "IS rape ever morally justified?" and askd for our opinions. My opinion is no, it is never morally justified. What other people think is irrelevant to my opinion.

And anyway, even if the OP question was asking for us to try to construct justifications for rape, so far everyone who has tried has failed. So I'm thinking the answer to that question would be "No" as well.

EDIT: Also, your person who thinks "revenge rape" is a morally justified action would fall under my first paragraph description of someone who is convinced of the rightness of his actions and therefore never thinks to construct justifications for them. Compare that person to someone who commits "revenge rape" and then tries to hide or deny it, or conversely becomes aggressively defensive in claiming some kind of right to have done it, or when exposed appeals to various external authorities for some kind of permission for his action, or proffers some kind of moral/philosophical justification that he never seemed to believe in before. THAT person would be the one showing evidence of guilt for having done something wrong and trying to hypocritically weasel out of responsibility for it.

It's a myth that torture isn't effective. If you have the right instruments and expertise to determine the veracity of the detainee's statements then it's very effective.

Source?

I sure hope you were trying to be funny. You failed horribly, but if you're serious that makes it 100 times worse.

Unless Indri means the person in question is a consenting adult, in which case it becomes some kind of BDSM roleplay.

My argument against yours was that legal =/= moral, so "it's legal now" does not qualify as a moral justification, and that people lie about their motives and justifications all the time, so a person just saying "my action was morally justifiable" is not proof that it actually is. understood, I used law and legality because society's laws is the best indicators of society's morals.

No, actually, for a justification to be a moral one, it has to be that the person thinks the action was morally right according to their beliefs about right and wrong. actually no. a person can morally justify an action that they know would be normally wrong.

If they just had a good reason to do it, that might be a pragmatic justification, but it in no way implies that the action is moral. I mean, people have "good reasons" to commit crimes, but that doesn't make it moral to be a criminal. you can have moral criminals, but that doesn't mean they are not criminals and their actions not a crime.

Morally Justifying an action is mainly for the person committing the action. Moral justification can be used to explain the reason behind the action but rarely does it succeed to be the excuse for the action.

Source?
The book 1984 and personal experimentation. The peer-reviewed paper will be published shortly - anonymously, of course.