[QUOTE=duckduckdean;22197434]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]
Wait, how will rape NOT replace the person with someone worse? Better yet, explain how shooting the person WILL replace them with someone worse. Or you could just capture the person. Why rape?
[QUOTE=archangel125;22197416]what[/QUOTE]
Counter-rape.
[editline]02:05PM[/editline]
Commonly employed tactic in prison showers.
[QUOTE=O'10er;22197470]That goes into the human rights of terrorists. What if raping them gets information that could save lives?[/QUOTE]
That goes back to the question of whether or not torture is acceptable. I'd say in a case like that torture would be better than rape. Are you saying rape would be okay to get information out of people?
please stop with those threads
[QUOTE=NOD Engineer;22197506]please stop with those threads[/QUOTE]
Please stop posting in my threads.
What if someone is holding a thousand people hostage and the only way to save them is to rape someone.
And there are babies tied to the people.
[QUOTE=archangel125;22197495]That goes back to the question of whether or not torture is acceptable. I'd say in a case like that torture would be better than rape. Are you saying rape would be okay to get information out of people?[/QUOTE]
If the information taken from them would prevent another 9/11, yeah sure why not. Raping someone to get directions to the tram might also be viable however, depending how you look at it.
[editline]07:08PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=NOD Engineer;22197506]please stop with those threads[/QUOTE]
His threads sometimes inspire debate, he must continue.
If there's only two people alive I don't think you're gonna give a shit about morals. Besides you have the whole "if I didn't follow orders they would shoot me" excuse, which while a poor excuse is valid in my mind. I'd rather torture someone else than be tortured myself/die.
[QUOTE=archangel125;22197474]Wait, how will rape NOT replace the person with someone worse? Better yet, explain how shooting the person WILL replace them with someone worse. Or you could just capture the person. Why rape?[/QUOTE]
I was referring to my dictator example and by raping them we do not replace them but show them the error of their ways potentially.
But forget that..raping a terrorist who is oblivious to physical pain, is an acceptable way of gaining information if people lives are at stake and their are no other immediate emotional torture alternatives like hurting the tortured's family.
In this case getting into their mind with rape would be not wrong as you could save a million lives or whatever with said valuable info
[url=http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/03/fan_fiction_friday_red_koopa_and_green_koopa_in_cr.php]What if you were a Red Koopa and your lover, a Green Koopa, had been enlisted to join the Dry Bones troops?[/url]
[QUOTE=Splurgy;22197642][URL="http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/03/fan_fiction_friday_red_koopa_and_green_koopa_in_cr.php"]What if you were a Red Koopa and your lover, a Green Koopa, had been enlisted to join the Dry Bones troops?[/URL][/QUOTE]
Haha what the fuck :v:
Although:
[quote]You know, I can't help wonder if the Red Koopa is sort of missing the point. Perhaps my critical analysis skills are failing me here, but I'm not sure what the benefit of this rape is -- it's certainly not saving the Green Koopa from its fate -- and thus, it kind of loses its moral justification. And just ends up being "regular" rape.
[/quote]
I know, I know. It was the only thing I could think of on the subject of morally justified rape, though. :P
From what it turns out is coming out of this thread, is that moral absolutism is non-existent. There will always be a grey area, because even if someone is being saved through violence, someone will always get hurt or die at the behest of moral implications.
[QUOTE=Splurgy;22197794]I know, I know. It was the only thing I could think of on the subject of morally justified rape, though. :P[/QUOTE]
Just read it and you've made me browse the site for the other story
Rape one women to stop a killer from bombing a mall or something?
A person is sexually frustrated due to his tiny dick, which he's afraid of showing anyone. After forty years of not having sex he straps bombs to himself and boards a train. On the train he orders a man to rape a woman - a fantasy of his and one that arouses him at the specific moment when he feels like he's in control - or he'll bomb the train.
The man who's supposed to rape the woman is also a bit odd and actually enjoys it. The woman doesn't, though.
With the madman's sexual fantasy fulfilled, he jumps off the train and kills himself and everyone else (not including the raped woman) lives happily ever after.
[QUOTE=archangel125;22197079]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.[/QUOTE]
Who Cares
[QUOTE=Splurgy;22197794]I know, I know. It was the only thing I could think of on the subject of morally justified rape, though. :P[/QUOTE]
Hell, it was hilarious still.
[QUOTE=freeaccount;22197970]Who Cares[/QUOTE]
I do
[QUOTE=archangel125;22197079]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.[/QUOTE]
How do you define general consent? There's been plenty of situations through history where armies have slaughtered and raped their enemies, and their own society at large was okay with it, because the enemy was a dehumanized Other.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;22197846]A person is sexually frustrated due to his tiny dick, which he's afraid of showing anyone. After forty years of not having sex he straps bombs to himself and boards a train. On the train he orders a man to rape a woman - a fantasy of his and one that arouses him at the specific moment when he feels like he's in control - or he'll bomb the train.
The man who's supposed to rape the woman is also a bit odd and actually enjoys it. The woman doesn't, though.
With the madman's sexual fantasy fulfilled, he jumps off the train and kills himself and everyone else (not including the raped woman) lives happily ever after.[/QUOTE]
Perfect...Forced Sex against the womans will. No court in the land would hold the man guilty for saving so many lives
[editline]03:43PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=TH89;22198136]How do you define general consent? There's been plenty of situations through history where armies have slaughtered and raped their enemies, and their own society at large was okay with it, because the enemy was a dehumanized Other.[/QUOTE]
Being okay with it, is not consenting to it. General consent would be if the person who raped, would not be found guilty in a court of law or by general ethical standards
Edit : 200 =) Significant #'s gotta love em
[QUOTE=duckduckdean;22198146]Being okay with it, is not consenting to it. General consent would be if the person who raped, would not be found guilty in a court of law or by general ethical standards[/QUOTE]
They wouldn't be.
Also there's plenty of places where it's considered proper for men to rape their wives or punish them for not having sex with them.
[QUOTE=archangel125;22197079]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.[/QUOTE]
Rape as a universally predetermined act; the rapist was bound to rape due to his wealthy and hedonistic upbringing. The physical laws of the universe being ultimately constraining, meaning that any notion of moral autonomy is an illusion... he had no choice but to rape.
That's what Clarence Darrow would try to argue, anyway. But it doesn't really justify it morally because you could argue that "it's predetermined you go to the fucking electric chair for that, you fucking sex-crazed freak."
[QUOTE=TehDoomCat;22198280]Rape as a universally predetermined act; the rapist was bound to rape due to his wealthy and hedonistic upbringing. The physical laws of the universe being ultimately constraining, meaning that any notion of moral autonomy is an illusion... he had no choice but to rape.
That's what Clarence Darrow would try to argue, anyway. But it doesn't really justify it morally because you could argue that "it's predetermined you go to the fucking electric chair for that, you fucking sex-crazed freak."[/QUOTE]
You countered an argument for pre-determinism that you brought up... Well played
[QUOTE=archangel125;22197079]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I stopped reading there because its a cynical, idiotic, pathetic, and downright false viewpoint on humanity.
[QUOTE=duckduckdean;22197608]I was referring to my dictator example and by raping them we do not replace them but show them the error of their ways potentially.
But forget that..raping a terrorist who is oblivious to physical pain, is an acceptable way of gaining information if people lives are at stake and their are no other immediate emotional torture alternatives like hurting the tortured's family.
[B]In this case getting into their mind with rape would be not wrong as you could save a million lives or whatever with said valuable info[/B][/QUOTE]
This is where Utilitarianism falls flat on it's face, because no matter how hard you try their will be undistributed justice. One man can be used to save a million others but does that make it right?
OP is a would be rapist who wants to find a reason to rape people, all to fill his rape fetish.
[QUOTE=Dr.Strangelove;22198774]OP is a would be rapist who wants to find a reason to rape people, all to fill his rape fetish.[/QUOTE]
Of course I am!
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;22198704]This is where Utilitarianism falls flat on it's face, because no matter how hard you try their will be undistributed justice. One man can be used to save a million others but does that make it right?[/QUOTE]
Its still the greater good and disregarding the facts its a terrorist, I still value the millions of lives making it right.
Moral Nihilism is the only way.
Not that you can't have a sense of morality, just got to realise it's all subjective.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.