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

[Crazy Ivan]

But perhaps a moral relativist cannot comprehend the sense in which I am using the words because it is contrary to moral relativism.

No, it's not "contrary", you are being arbitrarily relativist and absolutist, depending on how you feel about any given behavior... and that makes you a relativist. An incoherent relativist, but a relativist.

[alsarg72]

I don't really understand atheism without moral relativism. Without an entity at the top deciding for the rest of us, morality is relative to the individual perception, or collective perception.

Mmmm, I read over that too fast. It is indeed very interesting, because I presumed the opposite - that atheists would agree that there are moral absolutes. (I stress, not that everything is morally absolute.)

So your everything is morally relative is fascinating.

I actually thought Christians must be moral relativists because I see it as necessary for them to believe that they need the entity at the top because they have to believe that they can't make up their minds for themselves, both to not take away one of Gods most important responsibilities, and to reconcile things like Thou Shalt Not Kill with all the killing that God and his followers do in the Bible. (That is not even a good example because the morality of killing so far from absolute.)

I am not a moral absolutist.

To clarify - there are lots of things where I believe there is a moral absolute, my bike chain example. And there are lots of things where I believe there isn't, probably vastly more. The prohibition example. So by that I mean I don't think everything is absolute. Equally I don't believe that everything is relative.

So, I would I am sure agree with you on a great number of moral issues, but there are a subset that we would not agree on. I think I'll have to dig into the philosophical literature to find the arguments for moral relativism.

Thanks for the debate. Even if we didn't convince each other of anything.

[Abraxas]

If I may ask, I'm not sure if you saw my earlier post a page back or so, but what specific fault do you find with the reasoning that I do not know for certain rape is wrong but I would certainly like to say it is?

[alsarg72]

No, it's not "contrary", you are being arbitrarily relativist and absolutist, depending on how you feel about any given behavior... and that makes you a relativist. An incoherent relativist, but a relativist.

As I said in the other post I don't think everything is absolute. You think everything is relative. We are not going to agree any time soon.

I still want to know how my bike chain has any arbitrariness in it. I chose such a real and extreme example to avoid any arbitrariness.

But as I said, you've not convinced me, I've not convinced you, we've spent enough time on it. You can have the last word. It's Friday night where I am. Hasta luego.

[Crazy Ivan]

I actually thought Christians must be moral relativists because I see it as necessary for them to believe that they need the entity at the top because they have to believe that they can't make up their minds for themselves, both to not take away one of Gods most important responsibilities, and to reconcile things like Thou Shalt Not Kill with all the killing that God and his followers do in the Bible. (That is not even a good example because the morality of killing so far from absolute.)

That just demonstrates they are hypocritical. They claim absolutism, but behave relatively.

So, I would I am sure agree with you on a great number of moral issues(...)

Nope, we wouldn't agree on any. Because where I find them all inherently relative, you find some absolute, and some relative just because they aren't absolute. We would agree on perceptions of morality, not on its relativity.

Thanks for the debate. Even if we didn't convince each other of anything.

I'm not really here to convince. But I have to be sure I explain myself properly. I asked McCulloch for an opinion on that regard, if he finds the time.

[alsarg72]

Ok. We'd agree on nothing.

[alsarg72]

If I may ask, I'm not sure if you saw my earlier post a page back or so, but what specific fault do you find with the reasoning that I do not know for certain rape is wrong but I would certainly like to say it is?

I don't think there is anything wrong with what you say. It is very reasonable. You don't try to take a position that needs defending, you simply make a very open and honest statement.

The way I interpreted the debate was that it was whether something can wrong in an absolute sense - that there is no circumstance in which it could be considered moral, or is only wrong relative to cultural perceptions, opinions, etc.

Absolute and relative in this context have a specific meaning in philosophy and this is a very old debate.

I did not mean to ever imply that everything must be absolute, or everything must be relative.

The examples could be anything, and because the most extreme things are the most black and white to find something that people could agree on that seems like a reasonable place to start. Most things at that end of the scale are distasteful.

I can't even find where Crazy Ivan explains his position and it's completely beyond me. I'd like someone who agrees with him to explain it.

I'd like someone to at least explain how even one of my extreme examples is in any way relatively moral.

Or alternatively, explain to me how it must be that I am completely misunderstanding how they are using the word relative in relation to morality.

[alsarg72]

I have gone over Crazy Ivan's responses.

He didn't even try to explain his position. I was confused thinking that what he was saying was following on from previous comments, but they were what other people had said.

Instead he just came in being abusive and I paid him too much respect that should have been due to other people.

Crazy Ivan, I retract my conciliatory tones. It was misdirected. What are you going to ask McCulloch? If you passed the being a tool test?

[Zzyzx]

.
Regarding absolute:

There is one statement that we can regard as truthful in all times and all places:

"This too shall pass" (attributed to Persian poets -- though some claim Solomon).

Nothing is absolute -- all things will pass.

Can anyone suggest an exception and provide evidence?

[Crazy Ivan]

I have gone over Crazy Ivan's responses.

He didn't even try to explain his position. I was confused thinking that what he was saying was following on from previous comments, but they were what other people had said.

So it seems you're the common denominator. If only now you've "gone over the responses" that means you weren't actually paying any attention. And if you're only now realizing there was some reiteration, it means you didn't care what other people were telling you before.

Instead he just came in being abusive and I paid him too much respect that should have been due to other people.

I don't think I was abusive, beyond calling you obnoxious, for which I already apologized. People often reiterate each other in debate forums. If you stay around long enough you'll realize that. I don't pretend to go over every post in the thread. You don't have to indulge in debate if you think you already addressed the same issues.

Crazy Ivan, I retract my conciliatory tones. It was misdirected.

I do not. I still apologize for calling you obnoxious. It was out of line, and I do not wish to continue stooping to your level. You just made sure I pay special attention to your future posts.

What are you going to ask McCulloch? If you passed the being a tool test?

No, if he thinks I explained myself properly. I suppose that will reflect on the other debaters, who you ignored.