Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[viole]

Stoning people for violating the Sabbath is subjectively wrong.

But I believe you've just said a moral crime (rape) is quantifiable in its heinous nature to a materialist event (empirical tooth pain). Are you saying moral crimes have empirical weight? Are you saying you believe immaterial realities including morals exist?

That is not what I asked. Is that objectively right or wrong, if objective morality exists?

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, they are irrelevant. Justice and mercy are based in irrational ideas of sin, eternal life and an ephemeral bring looking over your shoulder.

When people talk about justice for some wrong against them, they are really talking about revenge for the wrong committed. A concept that flies in the face of logic.

Mercy is completely worthless. It implies this notion that we are doing them a favor. That is a dangerous concept. The justice system needs to be blind to such concepts.

What I care about is 'are they going to do it again' and have they punished enough to hopefully dissuade others who consider the same act?





No, but the reason is because logically I would not want it committed on me, and neither would anyone else. It isn't because some book told me it was so. That is completely unnecessary.




Of course not. In all probability none of the gods exist. If there is some all powerful being out there, I want nothing to do with them. He/she/it has no moral authority.

No, they are irrelevant. Justice and mercy are based in irrational ideas of sin, eternal life and an ephemeral bring looking over your shoulder.

When people talk about justice for some wrong against them, they are really talking about revenge for the wrong committed. A concept that flies in the face of logic.

Mercy is completely worthless. It implies this notion that we are doing them a favor. That is a dangerous concept. The justice system needs to be blind to such concepts.

How do you feel about the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution? Waterboarding? Sharia law?

Do you use justice and mercy in your life outside jurisprudence? Do you show your significant other mercy or justice when they sin against you? Or do you use lex talionis in relationships?

Are you aware that your comments above have left mere atheism and moved into the realm of nihilism and totalitarianism?

If we disregard the God you write of—saying that we agree, justice and mercy are rooted in irrational concepts such as a sin and eternal life, how many years should a rapist serve in prison? 1? 12? 256 without parole? How do you mete out justice without the use of an informed conscience—a conscience informed by mercy, for example?

What I care about is 'are they going to do it again' and have they punished enough to hopefully dissuade others who consider the same act?

Who taught you that justice equals self-preservation? Self-preservation is based in irrational ideas concerning evolution and the survivability of a species.

No, but the reason is because logically I would not want it committed on me, and neither would anyone else. It isn't because some book told me it was so. That is completely unnecessary.

WHY are you bringing up the Bible again! The OP asked if you would agree that rape is inherently wrong. FINALLY you agree it is a heinous crime and then YOU bring up the Bible. Why?

And you are using emotion for your jurisprudence, not logic—note: “. . . the reason is because logically I would not want it committed on me, and neither would anyone else.”

Rapists enjoy raping. Some people like to be forcibly penetrated against their ostensible will in sex dungeons. You are using emotion and not “logic”. Logic informs me that absolutes exist. So I leave it to you,

Is rape absolutely heinous or is it sometimes okay?

Of course not. In all probability none of the gods exist. If there is some all powerful being out there, I want nothing to do with them. He/she/it has no moral authority.

Why does Stephen Fry have authority to you? Does he have moral authority over you?

 

[BilliardsBall]

On the same basis that I can decide that not putting my hand in a fire is preferable to putting my hand in a fire. The argument from suffering is effective because no suffering would be required in existence at all if everything ere controlled by an omnipotent, all-knowing and all-loving entity. The fact that suffering exists doesn't mean it is a preferable state.


Because that urge comes at the cost of the suffering of another human being, obviously. The need to scratch an urge is not outweighed by the cost of suffering of another. On the other hand, the suffering experienced by a rapist after they are put in prison for rape is likewise outweighed by the improvement in society made by them no longer being able to make other people suffer because of their own urges.


Evolution doesn't "teach" anything - it is merely the mechanism of biological diversity. It is not a philosophical or moral system and has no place being in this discussion (except tangentially as a probable cause of the mechanism which allows us to determine moral actions - i.e, the brain, but not as an arbiter of said determination.


Because if you don't assign an objective value to it, you're literally talking about nothing.


No we don't.


No, we don't. First we have to establish the MEANING of right or wrong and establish what objective measure we can use to judge them by. Without doing that "right" and "wrong" are just arbitrary labels that can be applied to anything. It's meaningless to assert something exists without first defining the objective measure by which we determine its existence. It's no different to saying "We all have to begin with the axiom 'Flagonomatrix exist' and once we agree that it is self-evidently true that flagonomatrix exists we can attempt to work together to establish what is flagonomatrical and what is not."


They are philosophical constructs.


Yes. Because I didn't say "rape is objectively wrong just because it is wrong". I said "rape is objectively wrong because I measure what is right and wrong on the objective value of well-being, the rape is directly contrary to well-being, therefore it is objectively wrong."


I never said intercourse is a philosophical standard, I said WELL-BEING was a philosophical standard. Please don't misrepresent me, intentionally or otherwise.


I never said it was. Of course I acknowledge that rape exists. As far as the animal kingdom are concerned, the concept of rape becomes largely meaningless since they are incapable of giving informed consent in the first place. Humans, however, are thinking creatures with the capacity for consent and the ability to acknowledge it. This argument of yours is a mere apples to oranges comparison.


Then you need to read more.


Your argument is vacuous for the reasons stated above. You're just repeating empty rhetoric with no meaning. Saying "right and wrong exist" without definition is just empty air.


That's not axiomatic.


Neither is this.


Nor is this.


Nor this.


This neither.


And nor is this.


So, in other words, your entire argument rests on a large list of things you have unjustly assumed as axiomatic (despite the fact that none of them are) and that "right and wrong" are meaningless labels devoid of objective value?


Is something right or wrong because God said so, or does God say something is right or wrong BECAUSE it is right or wrong? In other words, is right or wrong purely determined by decree, or is something right or wrong regardless of whether or not God supposedly said it was?

On the same basis that I can decide that not putting my hand in a fire is preferable to putting my hand in a fire. The argument from suffering is effective because no suffering would be required in existence at all if everything ere controlled by an omnipotent, all-knowing and all-loving entity. The fact that suffering exists doesn't mean it is a preferable state.

Who told you an all-loving entity has concepts only of mercy and not any justice?

Is any suffering just? If a lover breaks your heart in two, do you wish them well—you know, the way Christians do—loving and forgiving them—or does your heart cry out for them to suffer?

Because that urge comes at the cost of the suffering of another human being, obviously. The need to scratch an urge is not outweighed by the cost of suffering of another. On the other hand, the suffering experienced by a rapist after they are put in prison for rape is likewise outweighed by the improvement in society made by them no longer being able to make other people suffer because of their own urges.

1. How do you know which urges are true, which are false? You seem to be making an absolute statement that 100% of rape urges are wrong.


2. If you are weighing human rights by saying it cannot cause suffering to another human being as above, are you pro-life or do you feel tearing at a human fetus with chemicals or a scalpel is appropriate? Why is rape wrong and abortion okay?


3. And if you are pro-choice instead, do you understand that you support one right for a human to kill a human (abortion) but not another right to harm a human (rape)?


4. How do you propose to answer any of the above without first accepting the axiom: right and wrong things exist, which is in itself an absolute statement?

Evolution doesn't "teach" anything - it is merely the mechanism of biological diversity. It is not a philosophical or moral system and has no place being in this discussion (except tangentially as a probable cause of the mechanism which allows us to determine moral actions - i.e, the brain, but not as an arbiter of said determination.

Do you see any double standard involved if you use evolution to disprove Genesis but are unwilling to use evolution to discuss biological imperatives, sexual and violence urges, pain and survivability (rape)?

If you won’t let me discuss evolution—since, I assume, you know it should trump any societally contrived nonsense about rape—can I prevent you from sharing evolution when Creationists make threads? Is that fair?

Because if you don't assign an objective value to it, you're literally talking about nothing.

When I say “rape is wrong” is that a spuriously assigned objective value, or merely the reflection of a true absolute? Do you think the two assignable objective values, “rape is wrong” and “rape is right” have equal weight? I would doubt that VERY much if you said “yes”.

No, we don't. First we have to establish the MEANING of right or wrong and establish what objective measure we can use to judge them by. Without doing that "right" and "wrong" are just arbitrary labels that can be applied to anything. It's meaningless to assert something exists without first defining the objective measure by which we determine its existence. It's no different to saying "We all have to begin with the axiom 'Flagonomatrix exist' and once we agree that it is self-evidently true that flagonomatrix exists we can attempt to work together to establish what is flagonomatrical and what is not."

An interesting analogy, but the very fact that you are telling me I’m wrong in the analogy above presupposes an axiom: right statement and false statements exist. If you want me to suspend belief in this axiom, then your analogy does not require me to address it, as it has no point to be made.

They are philosophical constructs.

They are philosophical constructs.

No, right and wrong exist, and I thought I’d start with a first principle: rape is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS wrong.

A philosophical construct or abstraction is also immaterial rather than material. How is it that atheists who claim dialectical materialism don’t know what is immaterial? Examples:

*God is good, all the time

*Rape is wrong

*Atheists are smart

*Atheists are stupid

*This painting is a beautiful painting

Yes. Because I didn't say "rape is objectively wrong just because it is wrong". I said "rape is objectively wrong because I measure what is right and wrong on the objective value of well-being, the rape is directly contrary to well-being, therefore it is objectively wrong."

Why should I presuppose the objective value of wellbeing? In the animal kingdom, some eat their mates. Why don’t they support their wellbeing? Atheists come to this forum and try to make my life and the lives of others a Hell on Earth. Why don’t they support my wellbeing?

Rapists don’t EVER bother to hold the objective, inherent worth of their victims’ wellbeing, which is why they are termed as “victims”.

So okay, we can say instead of “rape is wrong” that “wellbeing is an objective right”. You DO believe in an objective, immaterial something. Good! NOW we can talk about another objective immaterial something, God the Father.

**

Intercourse, if you are indeed an evolutionist, is a biological imperative, not a “philosophical standard”.

I never said intercourse is a philosophical standard, I said WELL-BEING was a philosophical standard. Please don't misrepresent me, intentionally or otherwise.

I never said YOU said intercourse is a philosophical standard. I said if you are an evolutionist, it’s a biological imperative and NOT philosophical in nature.

 

[BilliardsBall]

On the same basis that I can decide that not putting my hand in a fire is preferable to putting my hand in a fire. The argument from suffering is effective because no suffering would be required in existence at all if everything ere controlled by an omnipotent, all-knowing and all-loving entity. The fact that suffering exists doesn't mean it is a preferable state.

[snip]Is something right or wrong because God said so, or does God say something is right or wrong BECAUSE it is right or wrong? In other words, is right or wrong purely determined by decree, or is something right or wrong regardless of whether or not God supposedly said it was?

Cont'd:

I never said it was. Of course I acknowledge that rape exists. As far as the animal kingdom are concerned, the concept of rape becomes largely meaningless since they are incapable of giving informed consent in the first place. Humans, however, are thinking creatures with the capacity for consent and the ability to acknowledge it. This argument of yours is a mere apples to oranges comparison.

Unless, of course, we are evolved from such creatures as you believe, and not created separately as I believe. THEN it WOULD be a moot point. Repeating, you want to be consistent and if you feel evolution is truth, take the truth where it leads.

**

I’ve read a lot of work that indicates all philosophy as well as all science turns upon an axiom:

Right and wrong exist.

Then you need to read more.

How long must I keep reading to learn that all science and all philosophy that says anything is “right” and anything is “wrong” is axiomatic that right and wrong are “things”?

Perhaps instead of reading more and being more lost, you will either show me where I’m wrong or show me a science text where we can see that we can suspend concepts of right and wrong, aka true and false, aka 1 and 0, to do “tests”, “proofs” and “theories”, etc. so that we actually have “science”. I’m going on a limb here as you may prove me wrong (pun not intended).

**

If right and wrong do not exist, you would not know how it is “right” that humanists have created false syllogisms saying right and wrong can exist in morals or ethics without at least one absolute: right and wrong exist.

Your argument is vacuous for the reasons stated above. You're just repeating empty rhetoric with no meaning. Saying "right and wrong exist" without definition is just empty air.

Vacuous:
silly, inane, unintelligent, insipid, foolish, stupid, fatuous, idiotic, brainless, witless, vapid, vacant, empty-headed

Wait just a sec here! Are you saying my vacuous argument is false? Is wrong? Can you do that legitimately if “wrong” doesn’t exist? Moreover, if it exists subjectively, as you seem to be saying throughout this post—not that an objective “wrong” can’t be used as a label for any set(s) but that “wrong” is subjective, why can’t I say that a vacuous argument is a good argument or even a right argument?

So, in other words, your entire argument rests on a large list of things you have unjustly assumed as axiomatic (despite the fact that none of them are) and that "right and wrong" are meaningless labels devoid of objective value?

I guess I can reject my 9 given axioms since right and wrong are meaningless labels, but doesn’t that beg the question that your rejecting them was a meaningless label devoid of objective value? Because they still seem “righter” to me than to you—you may be right and right and wrong may be subjective.

But I don’t think that’s right.

Is something right or wrong because God said so, or does God say something is right or wrong BECAUSE it is right or wrong? In other words, is right or wrong purely determined by decree, or is something right or wrong regardless of whether or not God supposedly said it was?

Now I know why I previously ignored this question, because you seem to think right and wrong are not objective tools for judgment, so leaping ahead to judge God seems premature—or at least subjective—which is what I think atheist judgments regarding God all are—subjective.

But I digress. I’ll try to answer below:

Is something right or wrong because God said so, or does God say something is right or wrong BECAUSE it is right or wrong?

I think a good answer might be, “Right and wrong, sin and righteousness, justice and mercy, all concepts requiring two parties, pre-exist man in the person of God who began alone, and He has declared them to us.” I don’t want to belittle right and wrong, but in terms of game theory, God has set the board and pieces but tells us the rules and the agent sitting on the far side of the board.

In other words, is right or wrong purely determined by decree, or is something right or wrong regardless of whether or not God supposedly said it was?

GREAT question if you ask me! Right and wrong get woefully reversed in abusive families. Dad thinks its right to beat his children unmercifully and so on—we know what happens, right and wrong grow very confused in the minds of the children.

I read the scriptures, given by a good parent of all, and I learn right from wrong—with occasional stumblings, of course.

Thankfully, however, to address your question, right and wrong weren’t determined by decree but proceed from God’s nature. We forget God is a King. In a command monarchy, you pray for a “good” King because whatever he is, he tends to make laws from that place. Remember how Henry VIII wanted a divorce, couldn’t get one from Rome, changed the religion around him and his capricious nature.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is not what I asked. Is that objectively right or wrong, if objective morality exists?

Ciao

- viole

Objective morality exists (thank the Lord).

Stoning on Shabbat is subjectively wrong (or if you prefer, subjectively right).

 

[Underhill]

How do you feel about the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution? Waterboarding? Sharia law?

Do you use justice and mercy in your life outside jurisprudence? Do you show your significant other mercy or justice when they sin against you? Or do you use lex talionis in relationships?

Are you aware that your comments above have left mere atheism and moved into the realm of nihilism and totalitarianism?

Have they? I am not talking about the disregard of human life or anything close to it. I am simply saying that Justice is a flawed concept. What should be most important is a) rehabilitation and b) safety of society at large. Mercy is purely a religious function and should have no place in any criminal code.

If we disregard the God you write of—saying that we agree, justice and mercy are rooted in irrational concepts such as a sin and eternal life, how many years should a rapist serve in prison? 1? 12? 256 without parole? How do you mete out justice without the use of an informed conscience—a conscience informed by mercy, for example?

Adult rape has a high recidivism rate among the worst repeat offenders and treatment doesn't work well. Lock them up and throw away the key. But in lesser cases, first time offenders, unplanned date rape situations and so on, the recidivism rate is 1 in 20, and much lower with treatment. So these people should be given the choice of a long sentence (5 years+) or a shorter sentence with a rehabilitation program.

Who taught you that justice equals self-preservation? Self-preservation is based in irrational ideas concerning evolution and the survivability of a species.

Who said that? I said justice is a flawed concept.

WHY are you bringing up the Bible again! The OP asked if you would agree that rape is inherently wrong. FINALLY you agree it is a heinous crime and then YOU bring up the Bible. Why?

And you are using emotion for your jurisprudence, not logic—note: “. . . the reason is because logically I would not want it committed on me, and neither would anyone else.”

Rapists enjoy raping. Some people like to be forcibly penetrated against their ostensible will in sex dungeons. You are using emotion and not “logic”. Logic informs me that absolutes exist. So I leave it to you,

Is rape absolutely heinous or is it sometimes okay?

I answered that.

I didn't bring up the bible, I used a holy book as an example.

How is it emotion to say something would harm me thus should not be done to anyone to protect myself?

And if it is consensual it isn't rape. It is simulated rape or roleplaying, completely different animals.

Why does Stephen Fry have authority to you? Does he have moral authority over you?

When did I say he did? I like what he said, and it fit within the scope of our topic.

The options for most people are god or no god. I think the law should have nothing to do with god or religious concepts by and large. The entire notion of god as a moral authority is bankrupt.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If there are indeed no moral absolutes, on what grounds would you convict a rapist while serving on a jury?

It's called "thinking things through." It used to be rape wasn't a crime in very many places. But today we realized it is a violent and traumatizing act, and there should be consequences for those who do it. Moral absolutes are just not needed to realize or justify the benefits of pro-social behaviors and mutual cooperation. There is nothing cosmic or divine to enforce rules and laws, but we did evolve this thing called a "conscience" that for the most part prevents most people doing the things their culture does not like and/or has deemed wrong/unethical/immoral/illegal.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I apologize if I've framed this argument inappropriately, but most of the atheists I've spoken with online and off, have made statements such as:

1. There is no right or wrong, truly--it's only a subjective, shifting, societal opinion.

2. There are ethics but no morals.

3. I repudiate the concepts of sin and holiness (perhaps I should have used holiness and not righteousness but they tend to be interchangeable terms for me).

Based on the statements above, and the dictionary definition you cited, including morals and virtues . . . you can understand what I was thinking.

In my experience, most zealous theists don't what atheists are or what we think or believe. It's not what you wrote.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The focus on rape in the OP has to do with your post and that of others.

1. Humanist have no objective standards. You agree in this post above.

One does not challenge humanist values by calling them less objective than other value sets.

2. I disagree vehemently, and rape is objectively wrong.

Humanists abhor rape.

3. The bulletproof argument you cited seems to be the Golden Rule of Do Unto Others--Jesus is one person who made this rule a linchpin of ethical behavior, so perhaps there's more to the Bible than you give it credit for.

My ethical code doesn't have a single idea that was first spoken by Jesus in it. Do you think it should? If so, can you suggest some?

PS. How the humanist "understands that he has the same rights -- and no more! -- that he is willing to allow everyone else" makes no sense to me. The courts don't see it that way. Nor do the police. It seems you are saying you can disallow my rights simply by surrendering yours. You may not do so.

Still speaking for us?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The biblical term wisdom is knowledge applied unto righteous behavior. For example, knowing rape is wrong and then stopping a rape and not committing rape. Also the biblically wise adhere to the scriptures, teach them to others, and attempt to live them out.

The question of whether rape is objectively or subjectively wrong has several implications:

1. Do absolutes exist? This would be an absolute.

2. If I believe rape is sometimes not wrong, that is, subjectively wrong, would you want me on a jury judging a rapist?

3. If I have a subjective moral code, is there a slippery slope I should beware, for example, Judgment Day?

I don't find any merit in calling values objectively true. It's rarely clear what people using the word "objective" or "absolute" mean in this context.

When they use those words they way I do, it seems to be part of a religious argument that presupposes that if one claims values came from a god, he can then elevate their status to objectively and absolutely true, and call the values of others insubstantial and lacking foundation.

I don't consider such values inherently better, and in most cases, such values being esteemed for no better reason than having been found in an ancient holy book, they are often irrelevant or inadequate.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Man and God both have some responsibility for rape, I agree.

That's interesting. Are you passing moral judgment on them both?

 

[viole]

Objective morality exists (thank the Lord).

Stoning on Shabbat is subjectively wrong (or if you prefer, subjectively right).

Yes, but what about its objectivity? You seem reluctant to answer that. For some reason.

Or are there moral statements (e.g. "stoning people while working on the Sabbath is right/wrong") which are not part of the set of objectively evaluable moral statements?

If that is the case, how do you know which moral statements can be scrutinized about their being objectively right or wrong, and which ones do not need to go through this evaluation?

Don't you notice that by not giving me a clear cut answer, you are proving my point?

Ciao

- viole

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evolution indicates rape is propagation so either man has evolved wrong or is a sinner.

I don't understand that. Evolution indicated nothing, one cannot evolve wrong, and "sinner" is not a meaningful word to me. Did you mean violent sexual predator?

Rape is not about propagation. Sexual intercourse is. Many of us have reproduced without raping.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Who told you an all-loving entity has concepts only of mercy and not any justice?

Nobody. But if the Universe was made by an all-powerful creator with any ounce of good in it, suffering would not be a part of that Universe. There would be no reason for it to exist whatsoever.

Is any suffering just? If a lover breaks your heart in two, do you wish them well—you know, the way Christians do—loving and forgiving them—or does your heart cry out for them to suffer?

I didn't say anything relevant to this.

1. How do you know which urges are true, which are false? You seem to be making an absolute statement that 100% of rape urges are wrong.

That is a nonsensical question, and I've also never made any such assumption. I'm talking about the ACT of rape, not the urge.

2. If you are weighing human rights by saying it cannot cause suffering to another human being as above, are you pro-life or do you feel tearing at a human fetus with chemicals or a scalpel is appropriate? Why is rape wrong and abortion okay?

Because foetuses (up to a certain point) are not living, thinking entities. Also, I never said anything about abortion, so this argument you've brought up is erroneous. I also never aid that it "cannot cause suffering". I already explained that the suffering a rapist suffers from being in prison is justified.

3. And if you are pro-choice instead, do you understand that you support one right for a human to kill a human (abortion) but not another right to harm a human (rape)?

No, because I don't believe foetuses are living thing up until a certain point. You cannot end the life of something that isn't yet living, by definition.

4. How do you propose to answer any of the above without first accepting the axiom: right and wrong things exist, which is in itself an absolute statement?

I don't have to accept that axiom because it is literally meaningless, as I have already explained at length. I can answer them because I am able to JUDGE right from wrong by ASSESSING the objective values and effects of certain actions, and determining which actions I consider right or wrong in accordance with said values. I don't have to accept right and wrong as absolute. I just have to accept that I want to live in a world where 1) all people are treated fairly, 2) people have certain inalienable rights, 3) where life is preferable to death, 4) where well-being is valued over suffering, and 5) we do our best to improve general well-being and reduce suffering. When you judge things by these values, there are actual, objective ways you can start to assess right from wrong.

Do you see any double standard involved if you use evolution to disprove Genesis but are unwilling to use evolution to discuss biological imperatives, sexual and violence urges, pain and survivability (rape)?

I don't use evolution to disprove genesis. Evolution has nothing to do with it. And I am not "unwilling to use evolution to discuss biological imperatives", it's just that such imperatives have no actual relationship to the discussion of moral values and establishing objective right from wrong. Evolution is merely a mechanism, nothing more. It has no import with regards to the morality of intelligent beings.

If you won’t let me discuss evolution—since, I assume, you know it should trump any societally contrived nonsense about rape—can I prevent you from sharing evolution when Creationists make threads? Is that fair?

Not even remotely. I'm simply telling you that evolution is unrelated to morality. This isn't a thread about evolution - it's about morality. You're bringing in an unrelated subject which has no bearing on the concepts being discussed. I have no problem with you bringing it up, but all you're going to achieve by doing so is make yourself look foolish and pointlessly waste both of our time.

When I say “rape is wrong” is that a spuriously assigned objective value, or merely the reflection of a true absolute?

That entirely depends what your justification for it is.

Do you think the two assignable objective values, “rape is wrong” and “rape is right” have equal weight? I would doubt that VERY much if you said “yes”.

The statements are meaningless without justification and context.

An interesting analogy, but the very fact that you are telling me I’m wrong in the analogy above presupposes an axiom: right statement and false statements exist. If you want me to suspend belief in this axiom, then your analogy does not require me to address it, as it has no point to be made.

But they don't exist axiomatically. If you were to say "this movie is really good", is that a right statement or a false statement? On the other hand, if I was to say "rape causes suffering", then that is an objectively quantifiable statement.

No, right and wrong exist, and I thought I’d start with a first principle: rape is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS wrong.

Not according to your Bible it's not.

A philosophical construct or abstraction is also immaterial rather than material. How is it that atheists who claim dialectical materialism don’t know what is immaterial?

Except they aren't "immaterial" in the way you are indicating. A philosophical construct can still exist in relation to a physical or material fact.

Why should I presuppose the objective value of wellbeing?

You don't have to. It's just an obviously very good standard to use when determining right from wrong, and has served as a foundational basis for all morality from the beginnings of human society, and has proven its worth as a basis by doing so.

In the animal kingdom, some eat their mates. Why don’t they support their wellbeing?

Because they aren't intelligent like humans are and are thus incapable of taking into consideration the broader world around them and their impact on it. I find it odd how you keep dragging animals into a discussion about morality. It's like trying to drag the opinions of Mesopotamian sheep herders into a discussion about hardcore gangster rap.

Atheists come to this forum and try to make my life and the lives of others a Hell on Earth. Why don’t they support my wellbeing?

Are you serious? You think the opinions of atheists on a forum (which you are a member of and frequent at your own free will) is turning your life into "Hell on Earth"? You honestly think you're in need of pity?

Rapists don’t EVER bother to hold the objective, inherent worth of their victims’ wellbeing, which is why they are termed as “victims”.

Which is one of the reasons they are dangerous and deserve to be behind bars.

So okay, we can say instead of “rape is wrong” that “wellbeing is an objective right”. You DO believe in an objective, immaterial something. Good! NOW we can talk about another objective immaterial something, God the Father.

Okay then. Please demonstrate that God objectively exists.

I never said YOU said intercourse is a philosophical standard. I said if you are an evolutionist, it’s a biological imperative and NOT philosophical in nature.

Since I never said it WAS philosophical in nature, your statement is plainly inane.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Unless, of course, we are evolved from such creatures as you believe, and not created separately as I believe. THEN it WOULD be a moot point. Repeating, you want to be consistent and if you feel evolution is truth, take the truth where it leads.

The exact mechanism of human origins has no bearing on the philosophical concept of right and wrong. The truth of evolution doesn't "lead" anywhere other than a mere accepting of the fact of the evolution of biological diversity. If you feel there are further implications than that, then it is your job to explain why they should matter.

How long must I keep reading to learn that all science and all philosophy that says anything is “right” and anything is “wrong” is axiomatic that right and wrong are “things”?

But they are not axiomatic because they are not self-evident.

Perhaps instead of reading more and being more lost, you will either show me where I’m wrong or show me a science text where we can see that we can suspend concepts of right and wrong, aka true and false, aka 1 and 0, to do “tests”, “proofs” and “theories”, etc. so that we actually have “science”. I’m going on a limb here as you may prove me wrong (pun not intended).

The fact that the concepts are used doesn't make them axiomatic. I suggest you look up the word "axiomatic".

Vacuous:
silly, inane, unintelligent, insipid, foolish, stupid, fatuous, idiotic, brainless, witless, vapid, vacant, empty-headed

Wait just a sec here! Are you saying my vacuous argument is false? Is wrong? Can you do that legitimately if “wrong” doesn’t exist?

I never said wrong doesn't exist - I said it isn't axiomatic. And yes, your argument is vacuous by definition, because it contains no real meaning or definition.

Moreover, if it exists subjectively, as you seem to be saying throughout this post—not that an objective “wrong” can’t be used as a label for any set(s) but that “wrong” is subjective, why can’t I say that a vacuous argument is a good argument or even a right argument?

Because, as I have explained multiple times now, right and wrong are only subjective until you apply an objective standard TO them. A vacuous argument is wrong because it contains no solid reasoning or merit, and its premises do not support a particular conclusion (or, indeed, any conclusion).

I guess I can reject my 9 given axioms since right and wrong are meaningless labels, but doesn’t that beg the question that your rejecting them was a meaningless label devoid of objective value? Because they still seem “righter” to me than to you—you may be right and right and wrong may be subjective.

That's just meaningless word salad. I don't think you understand my argument.

Now I know why I previously ignored this question, because you seem to think right and wrong are not objective tools for judgment, so leaping ahead to judge God seems premature—or at least subjective—which is what I think atheist judgments regarding God all are—subjective.

But I digress. I’ll try to answer below:

I think a good answer might be, “Right and wrong, sin and righteousness, justice and mercy, all concepts requiring two parties, pre-exist man in the person of God who began alone, and He has declared them to us.” I don’t want to belittle right and wrong, but in terms of game theory, God has set the board and pieces but tells us the rules and the agent sitting on the far side of the board.

GREAT question if you ask me! Right and wrong get woefully reversed in abusive families. Dad thinks its right to beat his children unmercifully and so on—we know what happens, right and wrong grow very confused in the minds of the children.

I read the scriptures, given by a good parent of all, and I learn right from wrong—with occasional stumblings, of course.

Thankfully, however, to address your question, right and wrong weren’t determined by decree but proceed from God’s nature. We forget God is a King. In a command monarchy, you pray for a “good” King because whatever he is, he tends to make laws from that place. Remember how Henry VIII wanted a divorce, couldn’t get one from Rome, changed the religion around him and his capricious nature.

Wow. That's not even close to resembling an answer. I'll make it a lot easier for you and just give you two options which you can choose from:

1) Things are right and wrong BECAUSE God says they are right and wrong.

2) God says things are right and wrong because they are INNATELY right and wrong and God is merely informing us of that fact.

No more tap dances, please. Just a simple 1 or 2. Any further dodging of the question will be interpreted as obvious avoidance because you either lack the ability to answer the question, or because you realize the flaw in admitting either answer exposes the weakness of your theology and morality.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Have they? I am not talking about the disregard of human life or anything close to it. I am simply saying that Justice is a flawed concept. What should be most important is a) rehabilitation and b) safety of society at large. Mercy is purely a religious function and should have no place in any criminal code.



Adult rape has a high recidivism rate among the worst repeat offenders and treatment doesn't work well. Lock them up and throw away the key. But in lesser cases, first time offenders, unplanned date rape situations and so on, the recidivism rate is 1 in 20, and much lower with treatment. So these people should be given the choice of a long sentence (5 years+) or a shorter sentence with a rehabilitation program.



Who said that? I said justice is a flawed concept.



I answered that.

I didn't bring up the bible, I used a holy book as an example.

How is it emotion to say something would harm me thus should not be done to anyone to protect myself?

And if it is consensual it isn't rape. It is simulated rape or roleplaying, completely different animals.



When did I say he did? I like what he said, and it fit within the scope of our topic.

The options for most people are god or no god. I think the law should have nothing to do with god or religious concepts by and large. The entire notion of god as a moral authority is bankrupt.

Have they? I am not talking about the disregard of human life or anything close to it. I am simply saying that Justice is a flawed concept. What should be most important is a) rehabilitation and b) safety of society at large. Mercy is purely a religious function and should have no place in any criminal code.

“Justice is flawed” might not equal “Justice is a flawed concept”.

And are you saying that non-religious persons have no inherent mercy?

Adult rape has a high recidivism rate among the worst repeat offenders and treatment doesn't work well. Lock them up and throw away the key. But in lesser cases, first time offenders, unplanned date rape situations and so on, the recidivism rate is 1 in 20, and much lower with treatment. So these people should be given the choice of a long sentence (5 years+) or a shorter sentence with a rehabilitation program.

If we conclude recidivism is the key factor in sentencing because we make societal choices for good rather than use justice and mercy, are you saying jurisprudence is a matter of popular vote (more people are against rape than for it)? If the vote changes to favor rape, can we say “rape remains unjust or unmerciful” in your system where we put those two concepts away?

Who said that? I said justice is a flawed concept.

Thanks for clarifying.

I answered that.

I didn't bring up the bible, I used a holy book as an example.

How is it emotion to say something would harm me thus should not be done to anyone to protect myself?

And if it is consensual it isn't rape. It is simulated rape or roleplaying, completely different animals.

Because emotion informs us that the Golden Rule should be employed, whereas evolution informs us that the strong may take what they will.

When did I say he did? I like what he said, and it fit within the scope of our topic.

The options for most people are god or no god. I think the law should have nothing to do with god or religious concepts by and large. The entire notion of god as a moral authority is bankrupt.

Bankrupt for all or bankrupt for you or . . . ? You would like to have it both ways? Keep people in prison if they hurt some from the majority but keep God out of the equation though the majority advocate for God?

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's called "thinking things through." It used to be rape wasn't a crime in very many places. But today we realized it is a violent and traumatizing act, and there should be consequences for those who do it. Moral absolutes are just not needed to realize or justify the benefits of pro-social behaviors and mutual cooperation. There is nothing cosmic or divine to enforce rules and laws, but we did evolve this thing called a "conscience" that for the most part prevents most people doing the things their culture does not like and/or has deemed wrong/unethical/immoral/illegal.

How did the conscience evolve to become so inconsistent in its authority?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't understand that. Evolution indicated nothing, one cannot evolve wrong, and "sinner" is not a meaningful word to me. Did you mean violent sexual predator?

Rape is not about propagation. Sexual intercourse is. Many of us have reproduced without raping.

In my experience, most zealous theists don't what atheists are or what we think or believe. It's not what you wrote.

I’m not most theists.

One does not challenge humanist values by calling them less objective than other value sets.

In humanist terms, you are absolutely correct. In logical terms, we must employ axiomatic absolutes.

Humanists abhor rape.

The OP did not use the term “abhor” but the term “objectively wrong”, which is different.

My ethical code doesn't have a single idea that was first spoken by Jesus in it. Do you think it should? If so, can you suggest some?

Who said before the Bible, “seek the truth at all costs, with all your getting, get wisdom!” I believe this is first recorded in the OT—I believe this is also part of your personal code.

Still speaking for us?

I try to echo what humanists think to explain the fallacy of having all things be subjective, as well as the impracticality of the same.

I don't find any merit in calling values objectively true. It's rarely clear what people using the word "objective" or "absolute" mean in this context.

You don’t find merit in calling something true “always true” as to distinguish it from “sometimes true”? Isn’t that a good restatement of “objective” and “subjective”? Should we tell our children, “never trust strangers” or “always trust strangers” or “sometimes trust strangers”? What if we change “strangers” to “relatives” or “me, your parent”? Which would be the truest statements.

When they use those words they way I do, it seems to be part of a religious argument that presupposes that if one claims values came from a god, he can then elevate their status to objectively and absolutely true, and call the values of others insubstantial and lacking foundation.

We’re not there yet nor have I made that leap—but I have noticed that saying things like “not even reality is proven real” is a great goal post shift from talking about eternal life.

I don't consider such values inherently better, and in most cases, such values being esteemed for no better reason than having been found in an ancient holy book, they are often irrelevant or inadequate.

Where in the Bible or any holy book have you found this value: “Presuppose objective values are divine in origin?”

That's interesting. Are you passing moral judgment on them both?

Of course, God and men are responsible for rape. How much moral judgment each deserve, however, seems to be subjective—I want to put the men in jail, you want to say, “If God condones rape, God should suffer.”

I don't understand that. Evolution indicated nothing, one cannot evolve wrong, and "sinner" is not a meaningful word to me. Did you mean violent sexual predator?

Rape is not about propagation. Sexual intercourse is. Many of us have reproduced without raping.

It depends. Are you morally perfect? Are you a better person than a violent sexual predator? Because to judge you (and me) we will need some objective and not just subjective standards. There are violent sexual predators who are otherwise moral people. How should we judge.

On what scientific (objective) or philosophical (subjective) basis did you come to the conclusion that rape is distinct from propagation. Intercourse, whether forced or consensual is propagation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, but what about its objectivity? You seem reluctant to answer that. For some reason.

Or are there moral statements (e.g. "stoning people while working on the Sabbath is right/wrong") which are not part of the set of objectively evaluable moral statements?

If that is the case, how do you know which moral statements can be scrutinized about their being objectively right or wrong, and which ones do not need to go through this evaluation?

Don't you notice that by not giving me a clear cut answer, you are proving my point?

Ciao

- viole

I'm not reluctant at all. One particular moral question cannot be simultaneously subjective and objective. Stoning on the Sabbath is neither objectively wrong (don't ever stone!) or objectively right (there are never extenuating circumstances!) It will likely help you to think of objective as "always" and subjective as "maybe" or "sometimes".

I gave you a clear cut answer. Sometimes it is right, sometimes it is wrong. Jurisprudence (stoning/punishment/law/God's law/man's law/natural law) weighs circumstances, the inner life of the mind, motivations, etc. For this reason, I used rape and not capital punishment in the OP. Can you give me an example where you feel rape is appropriate/ethical/justified? If so, rape is subjectively wrong.

 

[viole]

I'm not reluctant at all. One particular moral question cannot be simultaneously subjective and objective. Stoning on the Sabbath is neither objectively wrong (don't ever stone!) or objectively right (there are never extenuating circumstances!) It will likely help you to think of objective as "always" and subjective as "maybe" or "sometimes".

I gave you a clear cut answer. Sometimes it is right, sometimes it is wrong. Jurisprudence (stoning/punishment/law/God's law/man's law/natural law) weighs circumstances, the inner life of the mind, motivations, etc. For this reason, I used rape and not capital punishment in the OP. Can you give me an example where you feel rape is appropriate/ethical/justified? If so, rape is subjectively wrong.

Sure. Rape is justified if I am a man who saved 50 pieces of silver, and who wants to marry a not engaged girl who does not like me.

Don't you think so?

Ciao

- viole