Is Rape just relatively wrong? Or ABSOLUTELY WRONG?

[steven84]

Mark Spence the Dean of S.O.B.E. (School Of Biblical Evangelism) encounters two atheists that were waiting for Ray Comfort and his crew to show up for some Open-Air preaching. SEE HERE:

Mark's first heckler was Bruce who ultimately concluded that morality is decided upon by "majority rule of a society." That is the very logical equation that justified Nazi Germany during the holocaust!

Frank said morality is genetic. This logical equation makes a man like Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer justified in their actions. They were dancing to the exact tune their DNA was tuned play. By Frank's logic there wasn't really anything wrong with these men...they were just unfashionable to the times. No right, no wrong just DNA and the will to live. Frank ultimately said we need to be more opened-minded to rape...the means would justify the ends according to him.

Mark unravels this faulty logic and reveals it for what it is. Moral Relativism, a view in which there in no real right or wrong...just fashions and changes. A world in which a mother Teresa and Hitler are both validly equal in the ways they lived their lives.

The only way to justify and kind of Absolute morality (which is embedded in our thinking) is to posit a Moral Law Giver which is the very God and Designer of our God Given Conscience that works as a Moral compass...convicting us and pointing us in the direction of the Savior. The Law of God is a school master that drives us to the cross!

Out of the three men in this debate who’s points were the most valid and realistic?

Is there any better way to take on a moral relativist? For instance does anyone know a quicker way to cut to the heart of the issue resolved?

Is there really a “Right� and “Wrong� in the objective/absolute sense? Or is it really just a matter of opinions?

You decide which side you fall on:

To the the Moral Absolutist...rape is an atrocity, it is the epitome of WRONG.

To the moral relativist...rape is merely a matter of preference and opinion. Hitler had his season of being the RIGHT kind of guy.

SEE MARK'S ENCOUNTER HERE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_kf3EgU6lk

[bernee51]

Minus human values, rape is neither good nor evil.

Sure - but we ARE humans and we HAVE values. We value survival (the engine of natural selection), and this may be the genetic root of our objective morality. We wish to survive, to thrive and procreate.

I think rape is relatively wrong, in that I believe that it is much more wrong than a lot of other things...

That's not what is typically meant by moral relativism. Sure, some things are worse than others, but the question is: are there things that are wrong in all situations and in all cultures? If yes (as I believe), then there are objective morals. Rape is wrong in all human contexts. Murder is wrong in all human contexts, and so is stealing. Sometimes extenuating circumstances may justify murder or stealing, but that doesn't alter the fact that these actions are basically wrong.

I would add that to be 'objective' it would have to be 'wrong' in all human contexts across all time and seen by all to be 'wrong'.

Can you think of anything that meets those criteria?

[fredonly]

Minus human values, rape is neither good nor evil.

Sure - but we ARE humans and we HAVE values. We value survival (the engine of natural selection), and this may be the genetic root of our objective morality. We wish to survive, to thrive and procreate.

I think rape is relatively wrong, in that I believe that it is much more wrong than a lot of other things...

That's not what is typically meant by moral relativism. Sure, some things are worse than others, but the question is: are there things that are wrong in all situations and in all cultures? If yes (as I believe), then there are objective morals. Rape is wrong in all human contexts. Murder is wrong in all human contexts, and so is stealing. Sometimes extenuating circumstances may justify murder or stealing, but that doesn't alter the fact that these actions are basically wrong.

I would add that to be 'objective' it would have to be 'wrong' in all human contexts across all time and seen by all to be 'wrong'.

Can you think of anything that meets those criteria?

I can accept the criteria that it be wrong in all human contexts and across all time, but I disagree that it need be seen as "wrong" by all.

The Israelites considered their genocide over the people of Jericho to be morally good - since they were (the Bible claims) doing God's bidding (Deuteronomy 2:32-35). That doesn't alter the fact that what they did was objectively wrong. Morality is not a matter of opinion, and objective morality is not determined by unanimity of opinion.

[Flail]

...and keep in mind...a Christian rapist is loved by God and will be rewarded in Heaven,but a hard working, honest Muslim family man is so despised by God that he will be cast into Hell forever.

[Zzyzx]

.

...and keep in mind...a Christian rapist is loved by God and will be rewarded in Heaven,but a hard working, honest Muslim family man is so despised by God that he will be cast into Hell forever.

Well said Flail.

That is a basic belief expressed by Christendom; worshipers of the chosen "god" are "forgiven" if they ask and rewarded in an "afterlife" whereas ALL who refuse to worship are condemned in that proposed "afterlife".

AND, "god is just and fair"

Go figure

[jakeman]

Sure - but we ARE humans and we HAVE values. We value survival (the engine of natural selection), and this may be the genetic root of our objective morality. We wish to survive, to thrive and procreate.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you implying that 'our objective morality' is defined by our need to survive, thrive and procreate, and that all actions that serve this goal are good, all that hinder is are bad?

Sorry if I got this wrong, I'm new.

That's not what is typically meant by moral relativism. Sure, some things are worse than others, but the question is: are there things that are wrong in all situations and in all cultures? If yes (as I believe), then there are objective morals. Rape is wrong in all human contexts. Murder is wrong in all human contexts, and so is stealing. Sometimes extenuating circumstances may justify murder or stealing, but that doesn't alter the fact that these actions are basically wrong.

It does require reason to sort through nuances of morality, but the fact that there can be disagreement about a hierarchy of morality (is murder worse than rape?) doesn't change the fact that the actions are blatantly, objectively wrong.

In all situations and all cultures, rape, murder, theft, lying and torture have all been acceptable within certain cultures at some point in time.

In the Middle Ages, I wouldn't be surprised if all of those were acceptable. Today, all major nations don't have a problem with murdering thousands of others if there's a percieved threat against them.

Throughout history, armies have invaded other nations and taken their treasures, women and the lives of countless citizens. Was that objectively right 2000 years ago, but objectively wrong now?

Maybe I missed the point, but as far as I can tell, the morality of all of these supposedly horrible actions have shifted quite a bit, depending on the time, place, circumstance or group of people involved.

Also, it might seem silly for me to not ask this until now, but how are murder, rape and theft blatantly, objectively wrong? Or more to the point, what makes the Golden Rule so infallable? It's certainly a good rule, but that doesn't make it the objective paramount of morality.

[Zzyzx]

.
Hi Jakeman, welcome to the forum

In all situations and all cultures, rape, murder, theft, lying and torture have all been acceptable within certain cultures at some point in time.

how are murder, rape and theft blatantly, objectively wrong? Or more to the point, what makes the Golden Rule so infallable? It's certainly a good rule, but that doesn't make it the objective paramount of morality.

You make some excellent points.

[bernee51]

Minus human values, rape is neither good nor evil.

Sure - but we ARE humans and we HAVE values. We value survival (the engine of natural selection), and this may be the genetic root of our objective morality. We wish to survive, to thrive and procreate.

I think rape is relatively wrong, in that I believe that it is much more wrong than a lot of other things...

That's not what is typically meant by moral relativism. Sure, some things are worse than others, but the question is: are there things that are wrong in all situations and in all cultures? If yes (as I believe), then there are objective morals. Rape is wrong in all human contexts. Murder is wrong in all human contexts, and so is stealing. Sometimes extenuating circumstances may justify murder or stealing, but that doesn't alter the fact that these actions are basically wrong.

I would add that to be 'objective' it would have to be 'wrong' in all human contexts across all time and seen by all to be 'wrong'.

Can you think of anything that meets those criteria?

I can accept the criteria that it be wrong in all human contexts and across all time, but I disagree that it need be seen as "wrong" by all.

The Israelites considered their genocide over the people of Jericho to be morally good - since they were (the Bible claims) doing God's bidding (Deuteronomy 2:32-35). That doesn't alter the fact that what they did was objectively wrong. Morality is not a matter of opinion, and objective morality is not determined by unanimity of opinion.

Can I suggest that you are taking a contempoary view with a level of social consiousness that has evolved somewhat (and continues to do so) since, for example, the times of the OT. Is it not plausible that in some centuries time something now seen by you as having a certain moral value - be it 'objectively' right or wrong, will change in value?

In medieval times, for example, it was seen as not only proper but almost a must to hold public executions with the victims head later displayed on a pike. This was acepted by the multitude as not only being right but also a valid entertainment.

IOW what is seen now as 'objectively wrong' is only so because it has evolved to be that way.

[alsarg72]

In our culture rape is absolutely wrong. For a differing view you can look at Saudi Arabia, rape is still wrong but usually the woman is held to blame instead of the rapists. Are they wrong or are we? The answer is neither, both are correct in their own cultural context.

That is an obscene conclusion to draw. There are issues where there are shades of grey, but rape is not one of them cannot be justified on cultural grounds and to do so is simply an example of the the worst kind of moral relativism, and is just pandering to a desire to be the politically correct and culturally sensitive. We don't have to accept that another culture thinks differently to us in regards to the acceptability of an apaulling crime. We can just say they are wrong.

[alsarg72]

In all situations and all cultures, rape, murder, theft, lying and torture have all been acceptable within certain cultures at some point in time.

"Acceptable" and "not wrong" are not the same thing. There was a time when it was acceptable for holy men to examine the private parts of old ladies for signs of cavorting with Satan and then have them burned alive tied to their bed in a field, for no better actual reasons than that they happened to be ugly and have too many cats around the time that a bad storm destroyed the crops. To accept that acceptability has any relationship at all to morality is to have a warped sense of morality.

[Wyvern]

In our culture rape is absolutely wrong. For a differing view you can look at Saudi Arabia, rape is still wrong but usually the woman is held to blame instead of the rapists. Are they wrong or are we? The answer is neither, both are correct in their own cultural context.

That is an obscene conclusion to draw. There are issues where there are shades of grey, but rape is not one of them cannot be justified on cultural grounds and to do so is simply an example of the the worst kind of moral relativism, and is just pandering to a desire to be the politically correct and culturally sensitive. We don't have to accept that another culture thinks differently to us in regards to the acceptability of an apaulling crime. We can just say they are wrong.

You demonstrate exactly what I am talking about by attempting to apply the morals from our culture onto another culture. Do you disagree that there have been rapes in Saudi Arabia and that it was the victim that was punished not the rapists? I am not being morally relativistic, I am being morally realistic. If you don't want to accept that other cultures have morals that differ from ours that's fine but you can not deny that they are different none the less. If you want other cultures morals to be the same as ours then you will have to alter that culture which is no easy thing.