I'd be the first person to say that the black and white sense of morality as promoted by many religions and the simple-minded does not in any way reflect reality. A common example would be the idea that stealing is always wrong.
Now if a starving man was completely out of options and stole to feed his family, I doubt people would still maintain that he should not have acted as he did.
The general rule is that there will always be circumstances surrounding an event where the rules that make an action immoral will no longer apply. So the man would have been wrong to steal if he did not do so out of necessity. But since it was necessary to protect and care for his family, the good deed of providing for his family far outweighed the wrong of the theft.
However, when I think about it, there are some actions which I can not imagine any situation ever excusing.
Like this one: Rape. I figure that no matter what the situation, it will always, always be wrong.
However, when I presented the idea to a friend of mine, he told me that it would be excusable in the event that the man in question and the woman were the last two human beings alive, in the interest of perpetuating the species, and the woman (Or man) was unwilling.
I maintain it would still be immoral because:
1. Two people would not be enough to remake a species: Genetic defects would soon kill humanity off.
2. Implying that rape is justified in such a situation also implies that humanity has some innate value that makes it worth saving. We destroy our environment and leech resources. We kill each other for stupid reasons. We discriminate like no other species, and our intelligence is based on our capacity for deception.
3. Since the survival of humanity is merely unrealized potential and not real danger to real lives, it would still be unacceptable.
My challenge to FP is this. Come up with a situation (that makes sense with regard to science - no magic/supernatural phenomena please!) in which rape would, by general consent, be acceptable, merely in the interest of determining whether or not moral absolutes do indeed exist.
a man buys an hooker
What if a women stuck a bomb in her clit and the only way to deactivate it would be to hit the bomb with a dick [I]and there are no dildos within 10 miles.[/I]
[QUOTE=Rubs10;22197194]What if a women stuck a bomb in her clit and the only way to deactivate it would be to hit the bomb with a dick [I]and there are no dildos within 10 miles.[/I][/QUOTE]
Really?
[QUOTE=archangel125;22197196]Really?[/QUOTE]
The officer bought it.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;22197194]What if a women stuck a bomb in her clit and the only way to deactivate it would be to hit the bomb with a dick [I]and there are no dildos within 10 miles.[/I][/QUOTE]
this man is a genius
[QUOTE=Rubs10;22197213]The officer bought it.[/QUOTE]
You're shitting me. In which country was this?
[QUOTE=Rubs10;22197194]What if a women stuck a bomb in her clit and the only way to deactivate it would be to hit the bomb with a dick [I]and there are no dildos within 10 miles.[/I][/QUOTE]
You have moved the argument to saving lives... And pushing a penis in to deactivate a bomb(Never thought i'd ever type this) is not rape as your sole intent was not to violate the woman for pleasure..
[QUOTE=duckduckdean;22197230]You have moved the argument to saving lives... And pushing a penis in to deactivate a bomb(Never thought i'd ever type this) is nto rape as your sole intent was not to violate the woman for pleasure..[/QUOTE]
This. Besides, how the fuck would a large blunt object deactivate a bomb that was in her clit, and not even in her vagina? The example fails. How would a large blunt object deactivate a bomb at all?
And... oh, okay. You're a troll.
[QUOTE=archangel125;22197220]You're shitting me. In which country was this?[/QUOTE]
:downs:
[QUOTE=archangel125;22197220]You're shitting me. In which country was this?[/QUOTE]
Poland.
[QUOTE=duckduckdean;22197230]You have moved the argument to saving lives... And pushing a penis in to deactivate a bomb(Never thought i'd ever type this) is not rape as your sole intent was not to violate the woman for pleasure..[/QUOTE]
You can work and still have fun can't you?
If someones life partner became intoxicated with booze for instance (Having sex sober with a drunk person is rape) and they had sex then I would say this "rape" is not wrong.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;22197194]What if a women stuck a bomb in her clit and the only way to deactivate it would be to hit the bomb with a dick [I]and there are no dildos within 10 miles.[/I][/QUOTE]
drive 10 miles and get a dildo
:smug:
Rape being having forced sex with someone against their will.
[QUOTE=archangel125;22197285]Rape being having forced sex with someone against their will.[/QUOTE]
no rly
[QUOTE=JDK721;22197284]drive 10 miles and get a dildo
:smug:[/QUOTE]
You've got 3 minutes.
And the women has babies tied to her. And if you try to remove the babies it detonates the bomb.
If the raped was going to commit harm to many people, and this, being a traumatic experience would prevent said raped from harming said people. So it's actually preventing violence with violence.
So beat the shit out of the person or shoot them, then. Why specifically rape? It's like the person is just looking for an excuse to rape someone. Unacceptable in that case.
[QUOTE=archangel125;22197352]So beat the shit out of the person or shoot them, then. Why specifically rape?[/QUOTE]
Opportunistic rapist, they didn't know about what the raped was going to commit.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22197342]If the raped was going to commit harm to many people, and this, being a traumatic experience would prevent said raped from harming said people. So it's actually preventing violence with violence.[/QUOTE]
I was thining exactly down those lines. For instance maybe if a female communist dictator tortured her people. Then she got raped and after the anger, she realized that her actions were out of line...
Self defense. If the woman is trying to rape the man, and the only way for the man to not get raped is to rape the woman, then it is justifiable.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22197368]Opportunistic rapist, they didn't know about what the raped was going to commit.[/QUOTE]
Then it's absolutely wrong, because the person didn't know about it, and because the person committed rape.
Well, some doctors don't tell their (badly informed) patients how a prostate exam works beacuse it makes them [I]less[/I] nervous sometimes.
Or prostate induced sperm sample-getting. With the same lack of explanation for the same reason.
I guess that vaugely counts?
[QUOTE=O'10er;22197382]Self defense. If the woman is trying to rape the man, and the only way for the man to not get raped is to rape the woman, then it is justifiable.[/QUOTE]
what
[QUOTE=duckduckdean;22197379]I was thining exactly down those lines. For instance maybe if a female communist dictator tortured her people. Then she got raped and after the anger, she realized that her actions were out of line...[/QUOTE]
Well, I was actually going down the lines of terrorism, like shooting up a mall. But then the raped was too perturbed by the action to commit their crime.
[QUOTE=archangel125;22197352]So beat the shit out of the person or shoot them, then. Why specifically rape? It's like the person is just looking for an excuse to rape someone. Unacceptable in that case.[/QUOTE]
Beating is temporary.. shooting will just replace the person with someone worse.. Rape scars emotionally, violating the person in an intimate way. Which is traumatic thus potentially resulting ina change of habit..which beating and shooting would not achieve
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22197422]Well, I was actually going down the lines of terrorism, like shooting up a mall. But then the raped was too perturbed by the action to commit their crime.[/QUOTE]
Again, why rape? Still unacceptable. If you want to stop a terrorist, you shoot them or incapacitate them.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22197422]Well, I was actually going down the lines of terrorism, like shooting up a mall. But then the raped was too perturbed by the action to commit their crime.[/QUOTE]
But this way its makes more sense to beat or injure or kill..my way makes rape seems like a viable alternative
[QUOTE=archangel125;22197435]Again, why rape? Still unacceptable. If you want to stop a terrorist, you shoot them or incapacitate them.[/QUOTE]
Go look at my previous post, the rapist didn't know of said actions. It's like running over a child molester without knowing they were one.
[QUOTE=archangel125;22197435]Again, why rape? Still unacceptable. If you want to stop a terrorist, you shoot them or incapacitate them.[/QUOTE]
That goes into the human rights of terrorists. What if raping them gets information that could save lives?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.