• Ethical Philosophy: Moral Absolutism.
    94 replies, posted
[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] Would leaving millions for one man be anymore right?
[QUOTE=duckduckdean;22198855]Its still the greater good and disregarding the facts its a terrorist, I still value the millions of lives making it right.[/QUOTE] You can't know the outcomes of actions, good actions can have bad concequences and vice versa.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;22197194]What if a women stuck a bomb [B]in her clit[/B] 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] :confused:
[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] In such a case, the one forced to commit the rape really wouldn't have a choice.
[QUOTE=archangel125;22199057]In such a case, the one forced to commit the rape really wouldn't have a choice.[/QUOTE] Technically we do.
I was watching Star Trek TNG last night on TV and it was this episode from the first season called Justice, and I feel it's relevant to the thread. [quote=Jean Luc Picard, captain of the USS Enterprise]I don't know how to communicate this, or even if it is possible - but the question of justice has concerned me greatly of late. And I say to any creature who may be listening: there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions.[/quote] I won't sum up the entire episode because I didn't even see the entire thing but this clip contains the relevant part Skip to 5:35 [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjyXnzkhXyM[/media]
If we define rape as having sex with someone against their will, then it will never be morally correct as raping someone would breach their freedom of choice/action/whatever.
[QUOTE=O'10er;22198958]Would leaving millions for one man be anymore right?[/QUOTE] It would be just, thus some people may come to the conclusion that it's right.
I use the morality of common sense. It's the general rules for facepunch and it has helped me so far. Everything is subjective. Nothing is black and white.
[QUOTE=archangel125;22199057]In such a case, the one forced to commit the rape really wouldn't have a choice.[/QUOTE] He has a choice. He has to choose between rape and something worse. That's what this thread is all about I believe. Trying to justify rape, ie. is there any situation where, compared to the other possible courses of action, rape would be considered morally the best alternative. Your starving man example in the OP presents a similar situation. A man must choose between a probably non-fatal crime and the deaths of many.
[QUOTE=archangel125;22197079]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.[/QUOTE] Your friend is a terrible person. "Hi, society is repossessing your vagina because other people want it. You get no say in this matter because I deem that the common good is more important than your right to choose who you have sex with. Sucks for you."
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;22199462]Your friend is a terrible person. "Hi, society is repossessing your vagina because other people want it. You get no say in this matter because I deem that the common good is more important than your right to choose who you have sex with. Sucks for you."[/QUOTE] He's gay, so it's even more strange coming from him.
So Adam raped Eve?
[quote= archangel] 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] 1. Implying rape, or any action at all, has innate value.
[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] The victim has terminal cancer and has 1 week to live. She is raped by 20 men, who's sum of pleasures, by using the Hedonus Calculus, is greater than that of one week, i.e. every man derives 8.4 hours worth of pleasure from it. This is called Utilitarianism, but i don't know whether you want a situation where rape is justifiable under absolutism, or just in general? It wouldn't be defined by general consent though, unless everyone was Utilitarian, but i am taking that as a true premise.
[quote]Like this one: Rape. I figure that no matter what the situation, it will always, always be wrong. [/quote] Haven't you seen 28 Days Later? There's only men and 1 woman left on the earth but the one woman is a selfish bitch so the only way to continue the human race would be to rape her.
[QUOTE=yuki;22200411]Haven't you seen 28 Days Later? There's only men and 1 woman left on the earth but the one woman is a selfish bitch so the only way to continue the human race would be to rape her.[/QUOTE] Doesn't give you the right to rape her.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;22200448]Doesn't give you the right to rape her.[/QUOTE] ^This, basically. Humans aren't bound to the logical solution of a problem and neither are our morals.
[QUOTE=Benf199105;22200234]The victim has terminal cancer and has 1 week to live. She is raped by 20 men, who's sum of pleasures, by using the Hedonus Calculus, is greater than that of one week, i.e. every man derives 8.4 hours worth of pleasure from it. This is called Utilitarianism, but i don't know whether you want a situation where rape is justifiable under absolutism, or just in general? It wouldn't be defined by general consent though, unless everyone was Utilitarian, but i am taking that as a true premise.[/QUOTE] That's Act Ultilitarianism, under Mill's Higher and Lower pleasure Rape would not be justified (to an extent) as it is a lower pleasure (it isn't intellectual).
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;22200641]That's Act Ultilitarianism, under Mill's Higher and Lower pleasure Rape would not be justified (to an extent) as it is a lower pleasure (it isn't intellectual).[/QUOTE] Correct yes, but i see Mill's Higher and Lower pleasure scale as very subjective anyway. To say one man should enjoy reading a book or listening to Mozart over a man enjoying a bare knuckle brawl or dirt bike racing for example, is stupid. ( Random examples but still valid.) If one man enjoys rape over mozart that is his view, to say he is incorrect because he dislikes higher pleasures is incorrect in my opinion.
[QUOTE=Benf199105;22201142]Correct yes, but i see Mill's Higher and Lower pleasure scale as very subjective anyway. To say one man should enjoy reading a book or listening to Mozart over a man enjoying a bare knuckle brawl or dirt bike racing for example, is stupid. ( Random examples but still valid.) If one man enjoys rape over mozart that is his view, to say he is incorrect because he dislikes higher pleasures is incorrect in my opinion.[/QUOTE] I do agree that it is snobbish, but in my eyes it's slightly more credable than the Hedonic Calculus.
[QUOTE=yuki;22200411]Haven't you seen 28 Days Later? There's only men and 1 woman left on the earth but the one woman is a selfish bitch so the only way to continue the human race would be to rape her.[/QUOTE] 28 Days later kind of contradicts your statement, because: "Do you want us to find a cure and save the world or just fall in love and fuck?" ... "That was longer than a heartbeat." *they make out* [QUOTE=MachiniOs;22201483]I do agree that it is snobbish, but in my eyes it's slightly more credable than the Hedonic Calculus.[/QUOTE] The most applicable of the Utilitarian theories has to be Peter Singer's... Preference Utilitarianism. "Whatever's best for everyone in the group of people involved." It's more relativistic. As opposed to the Act/Rule theories which are either universal or only applicable to individuals. But when it comes to rape, a Preference Utilitarian would consider the opinion of everyone involved, and that's 50/50, unless it's gang rape, in which case the gang get precedent over the victim, so I guess none of the theories are good at preventing stuff like that. You know what else would probably allow rape? Kantian ethics. 'Preservation of the species' being one of his categorical imperatives, and if there were only two people left on earth, it would be 'their duty' to screw to create more people. ...I see what Augustine meant when he said "Philosophy is the devil's whore" :v: any relativist ethical theory allows rape in specific cases. Not good. This is good revision for my exam in 2 weeks.
Net benefit for other/s vs Net detriment for other/s vs benefit/detriment to self (take this into account possibly in regards to selfless/selfishness) Any other species is automatically deemed for sub human standards of treatment.
[QUOTE=TehDoomCat;22202173]28 Days later kind of contradicts your statement, because: "Do you want us to find a cure and save the world or just fall in love and fuck?" ... "That was longer than a heartbeat." *they make out* The most applicable of the Utilitarian theories has to be Peter Singer's... Preference Utilitarianism. "Whatever's best for everyone in the group of people involved." It's more relativistic. As opposed to the Act/Rule theories which are either universal or only applicable to individuals. But when it comes to rape, a Preference Utilitarian would consider the opinion of everyone involved, and that's 50/50, unless it's gang rape, in which case the gang get precedent over the victim, so I guess none of the theories are good at preventing stuff like that. You know what else would probably allow rape? Kantian ethics. 'Preservation of the species' being one of his categorical imperatives, and if there were only two people left on earth, it would be 'their duty' to screw to create more people. ...I see what Augustine meant when he said "Philosophy is the devil's whore" :v: any relativist ethical theory allows rape in specific cases. Not good. This is good revision for my exam in 2 weeks.[/QUOTE] I have my exam on the 7th, that's an interesting application of Kant there. Howewever, you did over look something there, if we were to rape someone in order to "preserve the species" surely we would be using someone as a means to an end? This would be unnacceptable under kant due to the Kindom of Ends.
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;22202426]I have my exam on the 7th, that's an interesting application of Kant there. Howewever, you did over look something there, if we were to rape someone in order to "preserve the species" surely we would be using someone as a means to an end? This would be unnacceptable under kant due to the Kindom of Ends.[/QUOTE] This is where Kant is contradictory. What's more important... preservation of species via reproduction, or protection? What's more important: the kingdom of ends in itself, or fulfilment of duty in order to obtain the kingdom of ends?
[QUOTE=TehDoomCat;22202939]This is where Kant is contradictory. What's more important... preservation of species via reproduction, or protection? What's more important: the kingdom of ends in itself, or fulfilment of duty in order to obtain the kingdom of ends?[/QUOTE] The contradiction would go away if Kant could write in understandable/flowing English. I've never had so much trouble reading philosophy from a "modern" philosopher, I prefer Locke and Hobbes for easy reading, and that is saying something haha. I think that Kant wouldn't allow it. At the end of the day you can't break the rule against using people as a mere means (kingdom of ends) no matter what... That's what i understood from Kant, i.e. you cannot lie even if it would, say, result in someone dying. I'm not sure, like i said i don't get Kant as much as i'd like because of the way he writes.
I think this question is kind of pointless. Rape isn't productive in any way, so there would never be a point. It's like saying, will there ever be a situation where pedophilia is justified? There never would unless there was the ridiculous situations others have suggested in which you're forced to pick the lesser of two evils.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;22205768]I think this question is kind of pointless. Rape isn't productive in any way, so there would never be a point. It's like saying, will there ever be a situation where pedophilia is justified? There never would unless there was the ridiculous situations others have suggested in which you're forced to pick the lesser of two evils.[/QUOTE] It was also suggested that forcibly taking your own wife is allowed in some societies because it's seen as productive.
[QUOTE=Benf199105;22204716]The contradiction would go away if Kant could write in understandable/flowing English. I've never had so much trouble reading philosophy from a "modern" philosopher, I prefer Locke and Hobbes for easy reading, and that is saying something haha. I think that Kant wouldn't allow it. At the end of the day you can't break the rule against using people as a mere means (kingdom of ends) no matter what... That's what i understood from Kant, i.e. you cannot lie even if it would, say, result in someone dying. I'm not sure, like i said i don't get Kant as much as i'd like because of the way he writes.[/QUOTE] But we break that rule daily, for instance if i were to ask a teacher a question i would be using them as a means to an end thus breaking the rule.
What if suddenly the world was reverted to the 50's where Nixon was on his fifth term because of a blue glowing that was a verge of a nuclear warfare? And the only way to save both nations of USA and Russia was to create a giant vagina squid that kills like the half of all New Yorkers but in the end, saves humanity from total nuclear disaster because both sides join together to fight against alien threats?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.