Why is rape wrong?

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Err explain the "What? You just....wait what?" spasm.

You just made a nonsense post. I was very baffled as to what you meant.

"morally wrong? There is no such thing different people can have different morals!"

-AC

Yup i Can see how that could be interpreted wrong.

I didn't interpret it wrong, I didn't interpret it at all.

Did you mean:

"Morally wrong? There is no such thing. Different people have different morals"

Or something else? Because if it IS the latter, you countered yourself.

-AC

Originally posted by Ushgarak

BTW, that was a very awkward start to the thread and a poor way to introduce the idea. I recommend not making potentially offensive thread titles like that again, thankyou.

I felt people would discuss it with some perspective, having a difficult idea foregrounded within the debate.

Point taken though. If people can't see beyond the obvious, I guess it's up to everyone else to indulge them. Seriously though, I could have used 'crime', I admit.

I was touching on moral relativism, so move it if you wish. I forgot about the philosophy forum.

I do feel it is interesting how fervently moral relativism is opposed, with few actual refutations bar 'there is right and wrong'.

I don't really subscribe to moral relativism, but I'm not fully convinced by the opposing argument either. It's too nebulous for my liking.

Originally posted by Mindship

One could argue that moral absolutes (independent of Spiritual Authority) are defined as those by which a society prospers, not just in terms of material wealth (perhaps least of all in material wealth), but in compassion, adaptation, longevity, between its members and with other societies as well as with its physical environment. "Murder is wrong" would be an obvious example. Any society which sanctions murder will bring perhaps short-term material gain, but also eventual extinction. I'm no historian, but I think history does bear this out. Witness most recently the extinction of the Soviet Union, the second most powerful politico-military entity ever to exist.

Interesting. I think that this is a potentially fruitful route towards proving moral absolutes.

Although, it does presuppose the importance of society, which is another matter.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Dude, come on. A little maturity. You're a mod.

Why are you being one of the people who are purposefully ruining this thread? Talk about setting a bad example.

-AC

Look! It's Mr. 3 Times Banned In A Year! 😱

So it is!

Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
Look! It's Mr. 3 Times Banned In A Year! 😱

A) That's funny, coming from Mr. Owned by AC 5 times in a week, then bail out and make excuses! 😱

B) Don't speak on that which you have no clue about.

C) I've only ever been banned twice, for that matter. So let this be a lesson, child. Off with you.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A) That's funny, coming from Mr. Owned by AC 5 times in a week, then bail out and make excuses! 😱

B) Don't speak on that which you have no clue about.

C) I've only ever been banned twice, for that matter. So let this be a lesson, child. Off with you.

-AC

That was not needed and off topic AC.

So was his, what happened to your comment there? Oh you did.

If he replies, I'll PM him. It's done on my part.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Interesting. I think that this is a potentially fruitful route towards proving moral absolutes.

Although, it does presuppose the importance of society, which is another matter.

IMO, the route can be more direct: "There is no such thing as a moral absolute," contradicts itself.

Less direct: there are absolutes in every other sphere of reality, why not with moral reality?

And as for "a little bit of moral relativism" (that like being "a little bit pregnant"?), perhaps "moral tolerance" might be a better term.

Keeping an open mind to promote tolerance of others who think differently is an admirable quality. We do need more of it in the world. But as the Zen saying goes (something like this, anyway), "A mind too much like a sieve holds nothing" (great for meditation, but hey, that can be another thread).

Hell yes rape is wrong.

Originally posted by Mindship
IMO, the route can be more direct: "There is no such thing as a moral absolute," contradicts itself.

Less direct: there are absolutes in every other sphere of reality, why not with moral reality?

I'm not sure the statement does contradict itself.

Less direct route- I don't disagree. I just don't see many convincing arguments for the case.

Yes. The fact that we're even discussing the morality of such an action speaks volumes for how much humans suck at being.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes. The fact that we're even discussing the morality of such an action speaks volumes for how much humans suck at being.

That's what I find interesting. We all (for the most part) hold that strong belief. It is a belief, though.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A) That's funny, coming from Mr. Owned by AC 5 times in a week, then bail out and make excuses! 😱

B) Don't speak on that which you have no clue about.

C) I've only ever been banned twice, for that matter. So let this be a lesson, child. Off with you.

-AC

Didn't Ush teach you a lesson nono

If you reply to that AC I'll report you faster than you can say reported!

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
That's what I find interesting. We all (for the most part) hold that strong belief. It is a belief, though.

Originally posted by FeceMan
See, that's where I, as a crazy Christian, get off easy with stuff like this--I get to say that certain things are right and wrong no matter what and I don't have to buy into the bullshit idea of moral relativism.

Raising another interesting point- do you think morals exist independently of God, or did He decide them?

If independently, where are they from?

If He decided them, does that mean he could change the meanings of right and wrong?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Raising another interesting point- do you think morals exist independently of God, or did He decide them?

If independently, where are they from?

If He decided them, does that mean he could change the meanings of right and wrong?