5 ms·

Rape is wrong. It doesn't matter what your evidence or positions or logic are, you will not sway me on that point. I suspect that sort of thing is what GP meant

by vdqtp3 1y ago

Rape is wrong. It doesn't matter what your evidence or positions or logic are, you will not sway me on that point. I suspect that sort of thing is what GP meant.

brabel 1y ago
But that clearly falls within the parent comment’s definition. Just because you are prepared to change your opinion on something based on evidence to the contrary, it doesn’t mean such evidence exists or may even be possible! I am of the opinion that the Earth is not flat. And I know that no evidence you can present would ever change that because it’s patently obvious that’s the case given the evidence I already have! But I am still theoretically open to a debate. That’s the scientific method.
antonvs 1y ago
Much like saying "murder is wrong", the wrongness is a part of the definition of the word. There's no need for evidence or logic, beyond understanding what a definition is.
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  Neither rape nor murder are inherently, definitionally wrong. There are situations in extremis where murder and rape are considered justifiable: in war, murder is often praised; and in an "everyone else is dead, humanity will go extinct" situation (e.g. the subjective belief of Lot's daughters, according to some traditions, in Genesis 19:31–36), rape might¹ be considered permissible. And both words are used to refer to things which aren't necessarily wrong (e.g. "I'm going to murder this sandwich", or the "forcefully taking" -> "winning in a competition" senses of 'rape' described on Wiktionary and Urban Dictionary). Rather, central members of the categories of 'rape' and 'murder' are wrong for reasons, and while those reasons may differ depending on your ethical framework, pretty much all ethical systems agree on this point. "That's immoral by definition" isn't really how words work. Some philosophers would call that a category error, others would call it meaningless, and yet others would call it equivocation. --- ¹: For the record: I think the "don't rape" deontological principle is extremely reliable, and if anyone alive finds themselves in a situation where they think they should break it, they're almost certainly wrong about the facts. The dilemma faced by Lot's daughters was a false dilemma: many other options were available, including "talk about the dilemma and thereby acquire either consent, or a good counterargument", or "double-check with the supernatural being who created the otherwise-unlikely circumstance where you have good reason to believe everyone else died in fire and/or conversion to salt, to confirm whether you are in fact the last remnants of humanity". I can't think of a situation where rape is actually justified. Trolley problems don't occur in real life.
  - jhanschoo 1y ago
    You are mistaken. > in war, murder is often praised; The killing of an enemy combatant, for example, is usually lawful, praised and not considered murder. Generally speaking, the killing of a civilian is sometimes a war crime and considered a murder. You also have a lot to say on the nuanced ethics of killing and on sexual violence, but these deal with the underlying concepts themselves and the words don't matter; in fact philosophers frequently give common terms a specialized, ad-hoc definition when they want to discuss these concepts themselves.
    - throw3141592 1y ago
      [dead]
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      I have nothing to say on the "nuanced ethics": as far as I'm concerned, rape is bad and murder is bad. Sufficiently-advanced pedantry always circles back to that. There's no nuance to be had. If you asked any (non-bloodthirsty) soldier, officer or general whether they'd press a button to magically achieve their military objectives without bloodshed, they'd certainly take that option. Killing enemy combatants is praised as good because it is (considered) a necessary evil, but "necessary evil" is awful for morale. If you take people outside that situation, they tend to hold the view that "killing is wrong", or "killing non-wrongdoers is wrong" at worst. You've (re)defined the word "murder" to exclude "lawful killings of enemy combatants", but whether we use your or my definition, that doesn't change the morality of the actions. You also observed that philosophers do that kind of (re)definition all the time. That's the point I was trying to make.
      - jhanschoo 1y ago
        If the legal system calls certain morally bad killings in peacetime manslaughter that does not rise to the severity of murder, then I think that murder as is commonly used is a specific kind of killing that does not include your example of a wartime killing. Even outside of the courtroom itself, many are also very careful when using the word "murder" when discussing actual killings, because of its severity, and responsible people will defer to what suspects/convicts are charged/convicted with. Rather, it is you that have chosen a redefinition of the word. I am not responding to your discussion on the morality of killings, because your argument was primarily about the definition of the word "murder", and I wanted to point that you were not accurate either.
pjc50 1y ago
Yes. But what happens in practice, both in actual rape trials and the court of public opinion, is a battery of arguments to say that it wasn't "really" rape. Disbelief at the woman's version of events. (Or, for other cases, the socially subordinate person in the interaction). Arguments that various sorts of actions or forms of dress constitute consent. Introducing the victim's previous sexual history to discredit them. And so on. This is why "#metoo" was so controversial.
- bzzzt 1y ago
  > This is why "#metoo" was so controversial. I always though it was controversial because it did away with the 'innocent until proven guilty' argument...
motorest 1y ago
> Rape is wrong. It doesn't matter what your evidence or positions or logic are, you will not sway me on that point. Do you believe that you were already presented with evidence that compelled you to change your personal position on rape, and the only reason you didn't changed your position in spite of that was your stubbornness to stick with them in spite of you feeling your belief was already refuted? Or does the rationale still holds? I think you tried very hard to find a moral argument to try to refute the argument on integrity, but you unwittingly just proved the point.
quackqquack 1y ago
What if you're a duck
- Dilettante_ 1y ago
  When the shitpost so bad it needs its own throwaway
- red-iron-pine 1y ago
  based duckposting
- NotaRat 1y ago
  Still bad. They should require consent like rats do. Its much more ethical
potato3732842 1y ago
Why is rape wrong though? "hurr durr rape bad" is just repeating whatever you've been indoctrinated to believe. There's a more fundamental reason rape is bad (and this same fundamental reason underpins the reason we find a lot of other things bad).
- virgilp 1y ago
  It does fall back to "core values" though - kinda' like with math & axioms. The "why" chain of questions will inevitably lead to something like "because there's inherent value in human life", and this is the point where it breaks down because there's no logical reason to say that. You can probably postulate the contrary and end up with a completely different set of morals that may still be internally coherent but would be very alien to you. Just how you can say "in a plane, through a given point not on a given line, there is no line parallel to the given line" and end up with a weird, non-Euclidean but coherent geometry.
DonHopkins 1y ago
[flagged]

by vdqtp3 1y ago

Rape is wrong. It doesn't matter what your evidence or positions or logic are, you will not sway me on that point. I suspect that sort of thing is what GP meant.

brabel 1y ago

But that clearly falls within the parent comment’s definition. Just because you are prepared to change your opinion on something based on evidence to the contrary, it doesn’t mean such evidence exists or may even be possible! I am of the opinion that the Earth is not flat. And I know that no evidence you can present would ever change that because it’s patently obvious that’s the case given the evidence I already have! But I am still theoretically open to a debate. That’s the scientific method.

antonvs 1y ago

Much like saying "murder is wrong", the wrongness is a part of the definition of the word. There's no need for evidence or logic, beyond understanding what a definition is.

wizzwizz4 1y ago
Neither rape nor murder are inherently, definitionally wrong. There are situations in extremis where murder and rape are considered justifiable: in war, murder is often praised; and in an "everyone else is dead, humanity will go extinct" situation (e.g. the subjective belief of Lot's daughters, according to some traditions, in Genesis 19:31–36), rape might¹ be considered permissible. And both words are used to refer to things which aren't necessarily wrong (e.g. "I'm going to murder this sandwich", or the "forcefully taking" -> "winning in a competition" senses of 'rape' described on Wiktionary and Urban Dictionary). Rather, central members of the categories of 'rape' and 'murder' are wrong for reasons, and while those reasons may differ depending on your ethical framework, pretty much all ethical systems agree on this point. "That's immoral by definition" isn't really how words work. Some philosophers would call that a category error, others would call it meaningless, and yet others would call it equivocation. --- ¹: For the record: I think the "don't rape" deontological principle is extremely reliable, and if anyone alive finds themselves in a situation where they think they should break it, they're almost certainly wrong about the facts. The dilemma faced by Lot's daughters was a false dilemma: many other options were available, including "talk about the dilemma and thereby acquire either consent, or a good counterargument", or "double-check with the supernatural being who created the otherwise-unlikely circumstance where you have good reason to believe everyone else died in fire and/or conversion to salt, to confirm whether you are in fact the last remnants of humanity". I can't think of a situation where rape is actually justified. Trolley problems don't occur in real life.
- jhanschoo 1y ago
  You are mistaken. > in war, murder is often praised; The killing of an enemy combatant, for example, is usually lawful, praised and not considered murder. Generally speaking, the killing of a civilian is sometimes a war crime and considered a murder. You also have a lot to say on the nuanced ethics of killing and on sexual violence, but these deal with the underlying concepts themselves and the words don't matter; in fact philosophers frequently give common terms a specialized, ad-hoc definition when they want to discuss these concepts themselves.
  - throw3141592 1y ago
    [dead]
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    I have nothing to say on the "nuanced ethics": as far as I'm concerned, rape is bad and murder is bad. Sufficiently-advanced pedantry always circles back to that. There's no nuance to be had. If you asked any (non-bloodthirsty) soldier, officer or general whether they'd press a button to magically achieve their military objectives without bloodshed, they'd certainly take that option. Killing enemy combatants is praised as good because it is (considered) a necessary evil, but "necessary evil" is awful for morale. If you take people outside that situation, they tend to hold the view that "killing is wrong", or "killing non-wrongdoers is wrong" at worst. You've (re)defined the word "murder" to exclude "lawful killings of enemy combatants", but whether we use your or my definition, that doesn't change the morality of the actions. You also observed that philosophers do that kind of (re)definition all the time. That's the point I was trying to make.
    - jhanschoo 1y ago
      If the legal system calls certain morally bad killings in peacetime manslaughter that does not rise to the severity of murder, then I think that murder as is commonly used is a specific kind of killing that does not include your example of a wartime killing. Even outside of the courtroom itself, many are also very careful when using the word "murder" when discussing actual killings, because of its severity, and responsible people will defer to what suspects/convicts are charged/convicted with. Rather, it is you that have chosen a redefinition of the word. I am not responding to your discussion on the morality of killings, because your argument was primarily about the definition of the word "murder", and I wanted to point that you were not accurate either.

pjc50 1y ago

Yes. But what happens in practice, both in actual rape trials and the court of public opinion, is a battery of arguments to say that it wasn't "really" rape. Disbelief at the woman's version of events. (Or, for other cases, the socially subordinate person in the interaction). Arguments that various sorts of actions or forms of dress constitute consent. Introducing the victim's previous sexual history to discredit them. And so on. This is why "#metoo" was so controversial.

bzzzt 1y ago
> This is why "#metoo" was so controversial. I always though it was controversial because it did away with the 'innocent until proven guilty' argument...

motorest 1y ago

> Rape is wrong. It doesn't matter what your evidence or positions or logic are, you will not sway me on that point. Do you believe that you were already presented with evidence that compelled you to change your personal position on rape, and the only reason you didn't changed your position in spite of that was your stubbornness to stick with them in spite of you feeling your belief was already refuted? Or does the rationale still holds? I think you tried very hard to find a moral argument to try to refute the argument on integrity, but you unwittingly just proved the point.

quackqquack 1y ago

What if you're a duck

Dilettante_ 1y ago
When the shitpost so bad it needs its own throwaway
red-iron-pine 1y ago
based duckposting
NotaRat 1y ago
Still bad. They should require consent like rats do. Its much more ethical

potato3732842 1y ago

Why is rape wrong though? "hurr durr rape bad" is just repeating whatever you've been indoctrinated to believe. There's a more fundamental reason rape is bad (and this same fundamental reason underpins the reason we find a lot of other things bad).

virgilp 1y ago
It does fall back to "core values" though - kinda' like with math & axioms. The "why" chain of questions will inevitably lead to something like "because there's inherent value in human life", and this is the point where it breaks down because there's no logical reason to say that. You can probably postulate the contrary and end up with a completely different set of morals that may still be internally coherent but would be very alien to you. Just how you can say "in a plane, through a given point not on a given line, there is no line parallel to the given line" and end up with a weird, non-Euclidean but coherent geometry.

DonHopkins 1y ago

[flagged]