Godless morality

[karadan]

Jessica Biel is more than welcome to rape me.

How about if she is the type of rapist who likes to leave a victim’s genitals mutilated?

That...would be undesirable, yes.

It would probably still be something to boast about, though.

[karadan]

I may not be on par with the level of debate in this thread, but I'm pretty sure we can all agree rape is wrong, no matter the amount of pleasure experienced by the rapist, the victim is still being harmed, both physically and mentally.

I am of the opinion that nothing can justify rape, and nothing said can convince me otherwise.

Rapists experience disadvantages as well, There are mental issues, the inability to interact in a healthily in a social environment, not to mention the potential for disease, and the potential to be killed by a victim. It's a no win situation.

I can't remember where i read this from but apparently, most instances of rape aren't commited to relieve the rapists sexual desires but are in fact commited due to some need to physically and psychologically dominate the victim. They will therefore display other abnormal personality traits alongside a desire to rape.

I'd certainly categorize that as a severe mental issue although most rapists are still sent to prison. They should be sent to secure hospitals, for the most part.

[NothingSacred]

I may not be on par with the level of debate in this thread, but I'm pretty sure we can all agree rape is wrong, no matter the amount of pleasure experienced by the rapist, the victim is still being harmed, both physically and mentally.

I am of the opinion that nothing can justify rape, and nothing said can convince me otherwise.

Rapists experience disadvantages as well, There are mental issues, the inability to interact in a healthily in a social environment, not to mention the potential for disease, and the potential to be killed by a victim. It's a no win situation.

I can't remember where i read this from but apparently, most instances of rape aren't commited to relieve the rapists sexual desires but are in fact commited due to some need to physically and psychologically dominate the victim. They will therefore display other abnormal personality traits alongside a desire to rape.

I'd certainly categorize that as a severe mental issue although most rapists are still sent to prison. They should be sent to secure hospitals, for the most part.

As a victim I almost want to disagree and say they should be sent to prison because it is a horrible place but thinking about it logically if they could come to some sort of rehabilitation and they'd not rape anyone else that'd be more desirable than my need for revenge.

[Tank]

Sometimes I kiss my lady all over and embrace her lovingly before coitus--sometimes I just bend her over.  In either case it's fun consensual sex.  Just because animals copulate in ways unconventional for the species that doesn't mean a rape occurred. In any case, if rape does occur in animals, how does it follow that it is justified?

The whole point of existance is reproduction, nothing more and nothing less. The male reproduces and is thus, in an evolutionary sense, successful. Just because humans do it in a unique way (brought about by our uniquely long reproductive cycle of 13/14 'ish years) does not make us 'special' at all, you are simply evolved to behave the way you do. If a particular animal, for example koalas, normally follow a mating ritual that some males choose to ignore and simple corner a female and through brute strength copulate with her that would in my eyes be an abnormal interaction and if the female patently did not want to mate then I don't see any other name for it but rape, but I would consider an alternative description if you can describe one.

I just don't buy the "gene" made me do thing in regards to rape. This rape gene must be pretty weak because the vast majority (somewhere north of 99.9%) of men are not rapists.

I only just considered it a possibility so I don't 'buy into it' either yet, it's an idea I am proposing. I never said it was prevalent in a large part of the population, it can't be because as you point out, very few men are rapists. However, as rape can lead to reproductive success I would be very surprised indeed if there was not a predisposition in some men to rape. It could be that as the majority of men do achieve reproductive success through conventional means that the rape gene (if it exists at all) is usually suppressed. I don't know, as I haven't seen any body do any research. Of course we now have an ideal laboratory in China where there is a huge surfeit of males in the current reproductive generation (I recall a figure of 50 million males are unlikely to find a wife). I wonder how that demographic will pan out?

But I would suggest we draw a line under this speculative derail and get back to the main subject, which is?

[Thumpalumpacus]

If not then what is your justification for believing them?

The Golden Rule.  I operate on the assumption that I'm pretty much average, and I don't inflict on others that which I don't like; nor do I impose what I do.

And no, the only empiricism involved is that, generally speaking, this outlook typically ensures good relations with my fellows.

And to be honest, that's about as philosophical as I get.

[humblesmurph]

Sometimes I kiss my lady all over and embrace her lovingly before coitus--sometimes I just bend her over.  In either case it's fun consensual sex.  Just because animals copulate in ways unconventional for the species that doesn't mean a rape occurred. In any case, if rape does occur in animals, how does it follow that it is justified?

The whole point of existance is reproduction, nothing more and nothing less. The male reproduces and is thus, in an evolutionary sense, successful. Just because humans do it in a unique way (brought about by our uniquely long reproductive cycle of 13/14 'ish years) does not make us 'special' at all, you are simply evolved to behave the way you do. If a particular animal, for example koalas, normally follow a mating ritual that some males choose to ignore and simple corner a female and through brute strength copulate with her that would in my eyes be an abnormal interaction and if the female patently did not want to mate then I don't see any other name for it but rape, but I would consider an alternative description if you can describe one.

I just don't buy the "gene" made me do thing in regards to rape. This rape gene must be pretty weak because the vast majority (somewhere north of 99.9%) of men are not rapists.

I only just considered it a possibility so I don't 'buy into it' either yet, it's an idea I am proposing. I never said it was prevalent in a large part of the population, it can't be because as you point out, very few men are rapists. However, as rape can lead to reproductive success I would be very surprised indeed if there was not a predisposition in some men to rape. It could be that as the majority of men do achieve reproductive success through conventional means that the rape gene (if it exists at all) is usually suppressed. I don't know, as I haven't seen any body do any research. Of course we now have an ideal laboratory in China where there is a huge surfeit of males in the current reproductive generation (I recall a figure of 50 million males are unlikely to find a wife). I wonder how that demographic will pan out?

But I would suggest we draw a line under this speculative derail and get back to the main subject, which is?

The main subject was about rape I believe.  Animals just may not be evolved enough to rape.  Rape isn't simply forced sex with a woman.  If it was, it wouldn't be all that bad.  Generally, woman have sex, forcing a woman to do something she does anyway could be intuitively seen as permissible, or at least not deplorable.  We know rape is bad for a woman because of how she feels after the rape.  Her humanity has been assaulted, not just her womb.

[penfold]

Thank you everyone for your replies. I am greatly enjoying the 'animal' diversion.

I think I should make it clear that I am not trying to advocate rape in any form. I was merely using it as a particularly example of a moral wrong. My problem is trying to find a secure justification for the moral belief. After all we do not accept 'God's will' as an excuse for certain behaviours; so why should we accept 'it is right/wrong' as an excuse? It seems to me that there is a deep hypocrisy if we   rely on the sceptical method to discount god(s) and not apply the same method to our other beliefs.

The real problem here is not trying to convince myself rape is wrong (I seem to understand that intuitively even if I cannot objectively justify it). The problem is that I want to be able to punish a rapist. To punish someone for rape there are two possible justifications:

i) That rape is objectively wrong so I have the right to punish
ii) That rape is subjectively wrong and I have the strength to punish.

Th problem with the former is that it requires we find and objective means of talking about morality (and thus far no one has convinced me they have).

The problem with (ii) is that it can be reduced to 'might makes right'. I, for one, do not like that as a result. It seems abhorrent to suggest that, during the height of colonialism, slavery was not morally wrong because no one could be punished for it!

A couple of points form people's replies:

penfold, rape is wrong because you wouldn't want somebody to rape you.  Golden rule isn't all that complicated is it?

The trouble with the golden rule is, once again, why should I believe it? As I discusses above we cannot empirically demonstrate its truth; ie we cannot make a claim that the 'golden rule' makes the world objectively better. Do you have a good justification for it?

I am happy to accept that you may live by the golden rule. However morality requires that a rule dictates not just your own behaviour but provides rules for everyone. In other words for the golden rule to be a 'morality' you have to enforce it on others. By what justification do you do so?

I am of the opinion that nothing can justify rape, and nothing said can convince me otherwise.

I intuitively agree with this. However, you have reversed the burden of proof. You have made the assumption that 'rape is wrong' and that this requires disproof. However the problem is that 'rape is wrong' is a positive claim, so the burden of proof is on you. It is like a theist who refuses to prove God and demands instead a disproof.

[humblesmurph]

penfold, fortunately, the the legwork on this subject has been done many years ago by philosophers.  If you haven't read him, Kant would be a good place to start in my opinion.  

Whatever we do is guided by a process. That is to say, there is a "how" to every "what". If you are the Utilitarian you seem to be, then yes, according to your process, rape is wrong.  It really is just that simple.

Rule utilitarianism, that is, acting in such a way that if your action was to become the rule it would create the most good.  Everybody going around raping everybody is not a good look.

 If you rape me, you'll be happy--but I'll be sad.  My sadness outweighs your happiness.  That is not to say that my sadness matters more, as in my feelings are more important than yours (taking the utilitarian viewpoint), just that the net amount of sadness I feel as a victim is more than the net amount of happiness you gain from raping me.  Therefore, rape is wrong.  Nothing profound or complicated about it.

[Recusant]

I didn't mean to cause offence, and apologise if I did. The only reason I brought up rape is that in moral terms it is simple (though you are correct that I get less sex than I would like, but then who doesn't).


Our moral reaction to rape is instant and visceral. I have found that if one uses other examples often the conversation gets sidetracked; so killing detours onto self defence, genocide strays into history, etc...

Personally, I took no offense.  I was making an observation about a tendency I've noticed:  "Let's talk about morality. Now in the case of rape..."  

 Your "morally simple" may be a valid reason to discuss it, but there are other morally simple cases: Premeditated murder. Theft/embezzlement for profit. Arson for pleasure or profit. You get the idea.  The potential for side-tracking the discussion is there for the subject of rape as well.  Historically, rape has been a standard practice of armies in the process of conquering territory, and then there is the "rape in the animal kingdom" issue which has already been brought up here. So I don't see rape as morally simpler than other ethical questions, and therefore am not convinced that simplicity is a valid reason for using it as a common choice for such discussions. My "sex-deprived philosopher/dope slap" comment was a jocular way of expressing the fact that I find the prevalent use of rape as an example less than salutary.  

Your point about the trauma to the victim is certainly true. However there is a concurrent benefit to the rapist. So if your empirical measure of morality is pleasure/harm, as you seem to suggest, then you must be assuming that pleasure or harm can be measured. A claim of the form that “rape is wrong because it causes greater harm to the victim than any benefit to the perpetrator”.

Prima facie this seems reasonable; and this utilitarian outlook seems very fashionable amongst the new atheists. However there is a real problem in terms of measuring pleasure. To be empirical about anything one has to have a measurement in a standard unit. As pleasure or harm are inherently subjective they are not capable of measurement. This means utilitarianism cannot claim to be empirical. Bentham's hedonic calculus is a sham.

In my opinion, one does not need to have a precise form of measuring harm vs benefit for the sake of ethical discussion. Relative comparisons are sufficient.  The benefit to the perpetrator (and certainly humanity as a whole) in this case, as in many cases, is negligible in comparison to the harm done.  End of quantification. To try to say that there must be some empirical standard of measurement (units of harm, units of benefit) for a utilitarian stance to be valid is a red herring. One only needs to be able to compare the two.  I think my point about the extreme trauma suffered by victims is valid, and that does not even take into account the harm done to society.  One selfish individual's momentary pleasure becomes practically irrelevant in comparison, and to try to say that making such a judgment is inherently subjective is absurd on the face of it. You seem in this example to only deal with the harm to the victim, the benefit to the perpetrator.  What about harm to the victim's family, and society in general.  Are these issues unworthy of consideration? Does the fact that it is difficult or impossible to quantify in exact units the harm done to family and society mean that we simply disqualify them as subjective?

To take a more subtle example. The benefit cheat can go from a hand to mouth lifestyle to real comfort. The harm done to others measures in the fraction of a penny. How can we tell which of the following moral arguments is correct:

i)While the harm done to each member of society is very small the collective harm outweighs the benefit to the cheat; therefore cheating the benefit system is a moral wrong.
ii)The harm done to society is so small and diffuse that the considerable benefit to the cheat is more significant; therefore cheating the benefit system is not a moral wrong.

 The only way to resolve such a disagreement is by measurement. However we cannot measure pleasure and harm. There is no way to assert the truth of one statement over another.

This is a much better choice for an example. However, as you already pointed out, and contrary to your assertion that measurement is impossible, the harm done to society amounts to (minute) fractions of a penny per individual.  The benefit to the cheater and their family may  be quantified in a relative sense; living in poverty (on standard benefit level) vs living at a somewhat less destitute level (by scamming the system). Especially if there is a family involved, the benefit outweighs the harm, in my opinion. (Healthier kids are better for humanity in general, in the long run.) If the cheater is taking so much that it allows them to live in what might be described as comparative luxury, then the ethical scales tip against them.  They are doing more harm to society by their larger scam, and luxury in itself does not promote health and well-being.

Once again, precise units of quantification are unnecessary (though in the above case, we have the convenient measure of "fractions of a penny" on one side of the issue). I think that it is incorrect to assert that such a standard must always be met before one is allowed to make a judgment on "utilitarian" grounds.

I actually do not hold to a purely utilitarian view of ethics.  I think there will always be a greater or lesser subjective component to moral choices, so I probably haven't done an especially effective job of defending it.  I'm dubious that you have done an effective job of debunking the utilitarian stance by asserting that there is a need for distinct units of measurement to make it valid, though.  A lead ball can easily be determined to weigh more than a wooden one of the same size without knowing exactly how much either of them weigh.

(Edited for clarity.)

[Whitney]

I would say that the objective on which we can base good and bad is the affect an action has on humanity/society. Figuring out what actions specifically are good and bad for society has come via trial and error and there are a lot of gray areas and also a lot of areas where religion has crept in and ruined the process.  We can look back on history to figure out where people of the past went wrong and do our best to adjust our views of morality accordingly so that ultimately we are striving for a system that allows for the most good and least harm.  I like to try to argue that the solution to explaining etchics and how it works would be found somewhere between Egoism and Utilitarianism - some odd hybrid of two that would seem like an oxymoron until explained and then it would make sense; in essence what is good for the individuals is what will be good for society once consequences of actions are taken into consideration over impulsiveness.

btw, god isn't an objective source of morality because even if we all happened to believe in god we'd still all be arguing over what it thinks is moral since it isn't talking and is horribly unclear when it tries to speak through others.  Not to mention that god would be imposing it's subjective morals on the masses without reason beside I like it this way....nothing objective about that.

[penfold]

penfold, fortunately, the the legwork on this subject has been done many years ago by philosophers.  If you haven't read him, Kant would be a good place to start in my opinion.  

Whatever we do is guided by a process. That is to say, there is a "how" to every "what". If you are the Utilitarian you seem to be, then yes, according to your process, rape is wrong.

I'm not sure what makes you think I am a utilitarian. For the record I'm not and thought I was arguing against it!

As for Kant, his moral philosophy requires God. His argument is that the categorical imperative is based upon benefit. His conundrum is when the categorical imperative clashes with one's self interest. He gives the example of a prisoner in court who can either lie and get off, or tell the truth and be executed. Kant wanted to say that, as truth-telling is a categorical imperative, so the prisoner should tell the truth and be executed. Kant can only rationalise this by appealing to God and the promise of judgement in an afterlife [cf Critique of Practical Reason]. To be honest I don't find him particularly edifying.

And while many philosophers have debated these issues before, my interest is in how us 'new-atheists' (if you'll forgive such a phrase) approach them. I find that those at the forefront of the new atheists, people like Dennet, Dawkins, Hitchens et al. are peculiarly silent on the issue.

------------

In my opinion, one does not need to have a precise form of measuring harm vs benefit for the sake of ethical discussion. Relative comparisons are sufficient.  The benefit to the perpetrator (and certainly humanity as a whole) in this case, as in many cases, is negligible in comparison to the harm done.  End of quantification. To try to say that there must be some empirical standard of measurement (units of harm, units of benefit) for a utilitarian stance to be valid is a red herring. One only needs to be able to compare the two

How do you compare two things without a standard unit of measurement?

Comparison requires measurement. Measurement requires units. I'm not sure how anyone could seriously disagree...

Even Ovid in Metamorphoses tells a story of the question: who enjoys sex more men or women? The story is resolved by the changing of a man into a woman. Only then was direct comparison possible. The point, and it is a valid one, is that something as subjective as pleasure is not commensurable.

However, as you already pointed out, and contrary to your assertion that measurement is impossible, the harm done to society amounts to (minute) fractions of a penny per individual.  The benefit to the cheater and their family may  be quantified in a relative sense; living in poverty (on standard benefit level) vs living at a somewhat less destitute level (by scamming the system). Especially if there is a family involved, the benefit outweighs the harm, in my opinion. (Healthier kids are better for humanity in general, in the long run.) If the cheater is taking so much that it allows them to live in what might be described as comparative luxury, then the ethical scales tip against them.  They are doing more harm to society by their larger scam, and luxury in itself does not promote health and well-being.

First off, fair point that I suggested a measure of harm in my example, it was more to set up the problem than anything else.

However the general point I wanted to make was this. Your breakdown of the situation of the benefit cheat and society is elegant but utterly useless. You come to the conclusion that if the benefit to the cheat outweighs the harm to society then its ok, if the harm outweighs the benefit then it is not. Which was just restating the problem. What you do not give me is a way of discerning between these two situations.

That is what you need to have an empirically justifiable morality.

[humblesmurph]

And while many philosophers have debated these issues before, my interest is in how us 'new-atheists' (if you'll forgive such a phrase) approach them. I find that those at the forefront of the new atheists, people like Dennet, Dawkins, Hitchens et al. are peculiarly silent on the issue.

They've been silent because it is a non-issue.  It's just question begging to assume morality needs to be based on empirical evidence. What Dawkins and Hitchens argue in their books is that religion insists that it provides this elusive empirical evidence but it clearly doesn't, yet we still somehow know the difference between right and wrong.

[Whitney]

And while many philosophers have debated these issues before, my interest is in how us 'new-atheists' (if you'll forgive such a phrase) approach them. I find that those at the forefront of the new atheists, people like Dennet, Dawkins, Hitchens et al. are peculiarly silent on the issue.

It would probably be better to not assume that very many of us consider ourselves "new atheists"...I for one think the idea of needing such a term is ridiculous.  There are plenty old secular philosophers to look at when studying the basis of ethics.

[Sophus]

I have no idea if I'm a Gnu Atheist. What exactly is a New Atheist? If it's someone intolerant of religion I would say no. If it's someone intolerant of the dangerous stupidity that often spews from religion, then sure.

How do you compare two things without a standard unit of measurement?

Comparison requires measurement. Measurement requires units. I'm not sure how anyone could seriously disagree...

Even Ovid in Metamorphoses tells a story of the question: who enjoys sex more men or women? The story is resolved by the changing of a man into a woman. Only then was direct comparison possible. The point, and it is a valid one, is that something as subjective as pleasure is not commensurable.

I see what you're saying. Ayn Rand once said "[e]vil requires the sanction of the victim." I'll avoid using Stockholm syndrome as an example and try fantasy story by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, summed up by me*:

One day while sleeping under a tree an adder bites Zarathustra. The bite wakes him and he thanks the snake because Z realizes he is running late for something. The snake says, 'don't thank me. My venom is deadly." Z convinces him the snake has done a good deed and asks he lick the venom back from his wound, so the snake does.

...and an analysis from spark notes:

On the Adder's Bite
This section criticizes the Christian ethic of "turn the other cheek." If you have been wronged, you are better off releasing your anger through a little revenge than in letting it build up inside. Someone who wrongs you has done you good, and you would put him to shame if you were to turn the other cheek.

In short, science is objective, morality is subjective. There's a human element to morality.

* -from memory, sorry if it's a little off

[humblesmurph]

Generally, when I date women, they are theist.  For some of them, I get the impression that me being an atheist is a non-starter.  So..... I make up some bull about what I think god is.  Sometimes god is the universe.  Sometimes god is intuition.  Sometimes god is that little voice that tells us when we are doing something wrong. Sometimes...well, you get the point.  I couldn't possibly concede that the Jewish Christian Muslim god was real without totally losing my straight face, but these other interpretations seem to go over quite well.  If I was to ever get married, or even serious, the woman would certainly know my beliefs in and out.  

I of know men who give the impression that they have more money than they actually have, or women who pretend to not size up every date as a potential husband.  I  have a buddy who has pretended to be into gay activism to get closer to some hot dude.  All in the game.

That said, lying about god somehow seems worse.  That do you think?