What do atheist think about rape?

[AlP]

I disagree, I personally think ethical nihilism is sound in its ethical theory--It just happens to be so absolutely unlivable that it strikes me as practically asinine.  I also think a theistic argument for ethics is sound.  The reasons for disregarding theistic morality are based purely on squabbles over premises, not the fact the argument isn't deductive.  If one accepts the assumption of a God, then morals very well might rest in following that God's requests,  however if there is no God, their isn't even an argument for theistic morals, obviously.

I meant a sound deductive argument, which means the argument must be valid and its premises true.

Ethical nihilism is a sound argument but does not justify moral behavior, it justifies doing nothing because there is no reason to do anything.

Theism might have a valid argument based on certain premises about the existence of God and what He wants and suchlike but there is debate about whether the premises are true.

I also agree it works for me in a practical way (day to day), what bothers me is that I recognize I have a higher intellect than a vast majority of the population, more education, and a scheming mind. This posses the problem of being easily able to legally scam idiotic old people out of all their money for my own gain. And honestly, I can't figure out a non-theistic based ethical 'reason' for not benefiting from someone else's suffering.

I don't need a reason to act morally. I know what I want to do and what I want to be responsible for. This is how I look at responsibility. "One's responsibility" can be used to mean "what one should do" or it can be used to mean "what one has done". I prefer the latter; it gets rid of the troublesome "should". Then in making moral decisions, it's a case of taking a course of action that I hope will lead to "what I have done" being something I am proud of.

As long as it is legal, shouldn't it be permissible? Why value human welfare, interests and concerns when it doesn't further my selfish desires? Meh...

Why does law have any more logical force than morality? If you are willing to break whatever moral rules you like to get what you want, why not also the law?

[SSY]

I
In as far as rape being an option for the continuation of a species, that's flawed. Rape, in and of itself, is an act of violence and no species can survive on a system based on that violence just to procreate. (And before anybody says praying mantis, that's not rape.)

According to wiki, there are some species of diving beetle that only reproduce through rape, I can't see any reason why rape would be prohibited as the only means of "courtship", sure, there are other, perhaps more generally useful ways of reproduction, but rape is one way in which to pass on genes, and we all know evolution can throw out a mad one every now and again. Loads of species have frequent violent interactions with each other, and they seem to survive. Could you elaborate on why you think a rape only form of procreation is not viable?

Also. why don't you post any more? :verysad:  

[curiosityandthecat]

According to wiki, there are some species of diving beetle that only reproduce through rape, I can't see any reason why rape would be prohibited as the only means of "courtship", sure, there are other, perhaps more generally useful ways of reproduction, but rape is one way in which to pass on genes, and we all know evolution can throw out a mad one every now and again. Loads of species have frequent violent interactions with each other, and they seem to survive. Could you elaborate on why you think a rape only form of procreation is not viable?

I suppose I wasn't taking into account lower-level organisms like beetles. I suppose in my mind I consider rape to be a by-product of a take-all-and-damn-the-consequences mindset that, if applied to other aspects of a species' existence would likely end up developing a number of traits that are opposed to sustainability. I also equate rape with a lack of stick-to-it-iveness on behalf of the raper (is that the right word? hah), leaving the rapee with child and without a support system. The genes of the raper are passed on to that child, creating (likely) more members of that species with the same tendency. If the rapee/mother overcomes this and raises the young on her own, I suppose it could compensate. Still, violent sex isn't exactly rape. Look at BSDM.  :verysad:  :verysad:[/quote]
I graduated from my Master's program that dealt with religion and I suppose it's just out of sight, out of mind. Now I'm doing a Ph.D with video games at the center of my research, so instead of reading journals on religiosity it's journals on new media and gaming. I still pop up now and then to leave snarky remarks and questionable pictures, though.  

[templeboy]

Also with respect, I'm not exactly sure how it is a straw man of Humanism.  Please explain.

Yes, I admit Humanism is based on goals.  You have to remember though, so is everything else.  Isn't the point of an ethical stance is to give a *reason* that the goals a system is based on are 'good' or 'ethical' (ie rape is atrocious to link it to this thread)?  Saying "I have x, y, and z as goals" isn't a very good support for why x, y, and z are 'good'.

honestly, IMO even your post is basically "I can therefor I should" logic.  I *can* hold those Humanistic goals as good, but does it lead deductively to I *should* hold them as good? I think not.  If it does, let me ask you about the sociopath, or the murderer, or the theft.  They all have goals.  The sociopaths have the goal of doing whatever they want, the murderers have the goal of killing whomever they want, the thieves have the goal of stealing whatever they want.  Under humanistic logic it would be absolutely UNethical for someone with a murderous bent to NOT kill as it violets their 'goals', and the thief to NOT steal as it violates their 'goals'...etc.   I hope you can see what I'm getting at.  If it is unethical to violate humanistic goals, then its unethical to violate whatever goals you hold, no matter how stupid and obviously despicable they are (ie the rapist.)  

If this is still a straw-man in your eyes, I'm sorry but you will have to be kind enough to me to thoroughly explain how.

This cuts to the core of humanism, and indeed one of the critisisms of humanism, namely that it is overty "human centered," even "specisist." Humanism might have goals, but if these goals are arbitary in basis, then any entire ethical system derived from it is also arbitary.

But I think to a certain extent, this arbitrariness is acceptable. Where of course it is not acceptable is where universal goals in an ethical system are subordinated to an individuals goals and values. Then we get the situation you describe, where a sociapaths, a murders, a rapists goals are used to justify their actions. Someone else mentioned the "golden rule," do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and the point of this golden rule is that we must not discriminate between individuals on arbitary grounds. Of course that implies that we should not discriminate between blacks and whites, males and females, unless the differences between said people are non-arbitary and universalisable . The same goes for selfishness; there is no non-arbitary, universalistic difference between myself and another individual; hence I should be at least as kind towards other people as I would expect them to be towards me.

(Basically, the golden rule is a way of saying "you're not special. stop acting as though you are.")

So on the broad scale, humanistic ethics is arbitary, in the same sense that all human endeavor is ultimately futile and irrelevant to the fate of the universe. Recognising that morality is a product, a property, of culture, humanistic ethics seeks to prevent arbitary distinction between individuals on this level. And the goals of humanism are thus those goals which conform to the universalisable model of discrimination, and (this is the arbitary and thus contentious part) those that seek to improve the human condition generally)

Ergo the main arbitary part of humanism is that it seeks to do good. That can only be explained by human nature; and that is explained by cultural and genetic evolution.

[Ihateusernames]

I meant a sound deductive argument, which means the argument must be valid and its premises true.

Ethical nihilism is a sound argument but does not justify moral behavior, it justifies doing nothing because there is no reason to do anything.

Theism might have a valid argument based on certain premises about the existence of God and what He wants and suchlike but there is debate about whether the premises are true.

Ethical nihilism does justify doing whatever the heck you want (even if it is normally held as "evil"), however at the moment isn't this the only sound atheistic deductive moral theory that makes any philosophical sense?

also, you are right, theistic morality may be a sound deductive argument, but the soundness is for another conversation.  I should have been paid more attention to my terminology! : )

I don't need a reason to act morally. I know what I want to do and what I want to be responsible for. This is how I look at responsibility. "One's responsibility" can be used to mean "what one should do" or it can be used to mean "what one has done". I prefer the latter; it gets rid of the troublesome "should". Then in making moral decisions, it's a case of taking a course of action that I hope will lead to "what I have done" being something I am proud of.

I agree that people don't need a reason to act morally.  Even most ethical nihilists are generally moral, after all.  However, if there is no underlying reason as to what makes some behaviors 'good' and some 'bad' then when you run into someone who acts evil, does it really boil down to a "well that's your personal preference" to you?  If you want to be able to condemn that person's actions as evil philosophically speaking you are required to have a reason(s) that make your personal opinions of what is 'good' more valid than what they believe is 'good' (ie their evil actions) else the conflict becomes as valid as an argument about how "strawberry is more tasty than blueberry"--purely subjective.  

Let me ask you this, do you really condemn the topic of this thread purely on a personal taste basis of "well I hate it", or do you condemn it absolutely, universally, and throughout all time and cultural norms in any situation ever?  I personally choose the latter.

As long as it is legal, shouldn't it be permissible? Why value human welfare, interests and concerns when it doesn't further my selfish desires? Meh...

Why does law have any more logical force than morality? If you are willing to break whatever moral rules you like to get what you want, why not also the law?

I should have been more clear.  That was my ethical nihilistic side talking.  Assuming ethical nihilism, obviously the only deterrent to any behavior would be punishment.  If its against the law, I risk punishment.  If it isn't it against the law it would be foolish of me to not engage in a behavior that benefits me even if it does cause others to suffer.   (I may be odd, but it really isn't hard to turn off my empathy switch when dealing with strangers :secret:)

So behaving against the law isn't 'immoral' to my ethical nihilistic side, its just risky--sometimes tooooo risky.

-Ihateusernames

[Ihateusernames]

This cuts to the core of humanism, and indeed one of the critisisms of humanism, namely that it is overty "human centered," even "specisist." Humanism might have goals, but if these goals are arbitary in basis, then any entire ethical system derived from it is also arbitary.

But I think to a certain extent, this arbitrariness is acceptable. Where of course it is not acceptable is where universal goals in an ethical system are subordinated to an individuals goals and values. Then we get the situation you describe, where a sociapaths, a murders, a rapists goals are used to justify their actions. Someone else mentioned the "golden rule," do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and the point of this golden rule is that we must not discriminate between individuals on arbitary grounds. Of course that implies that we should not discriminate between blacks and whites, males and females, unless the differences between said people are non-arbitary and universalisable . The same goes for selfishness; there is no non-arbitary, universalistic difference between myself and another individual; hence I should be at least as kind towards other people as I would expect them to be towards me.  

I hate to say this, but you do realize you basically are saying "yeah it doesn't make any philosophic sense, however I like it so its good."

Also, the same critique of Humanism applies to the golden rule, so I'm not sure what you are getting at by quoting it at me.  you say that "we must not discriminate between individuals on arbitary grounds."  Can you please back this up with some reason for not discriminating on arbitrary grounds not based in personal opinion?  Lets assume that I'm someone saying that blacks are less valuable than whites. Will a conversation with you boil down to a "uh-huh, nu-uh" exchange?  Now to take your argument further, because you claim humanism is only not acceptable when the individual's goals outweigh the larger groups, how about we take this thought scenario back a couple of hundred of years ago when blacks were thought by the larger society to be lesser than whites. What happens then? My opinion and society at large vs yours.  Does that then make me correct? .. I hope you see where I'm going with this.

So on the broad scale, humanistic ethics is arbitary, in the same sense that all human endeavor is ultimately futile and irrelevant to the fate of the universe. Recognising that morality is a product, a property, of culture, humanistic ethics seeks to prevent arbitary distinction between individuals on this level. And the goals of humanism are thus those goals which conform to the universalisable model of discrimination, and (this is the arbitary and thus contentious part) those that seek to improve the human condition generally)

If we are going to zoom out that far... if everything is pointless even humanism is pointless as the universe heads toward its inevitable death.  This kinda sounds more nihilistic to me.

Ergo the main arbitary part of humanism is that it seeks to do good. That can only be explained by human nature; and that is explained by cultural and genetic evolution.

This basically explains why humanism exists, not if it's valid or not so it was kinda pointless in this conversation, but meh. whatever.

-Ihateusernames

[Whitney]

however at the moment isn't this the only sound atheistic deductive moral theory that makes any philosophical sense?

I don't think ethical nihilism makes much practical sense as there would be no reason to care about how you treat others.  I think one thing people often forget about philosophy is that even if an argument is logically sound it must still fit reality.  I think something like ethical egoism would be appealing to most who accept ethical nihilism yet doesn't ignore the fact that humans do have a survival need to act morally.

From my understanding of ethical egoism rather than there being prescriptive morals one simply might act in a manner that benefits their neighbor knowing that doing so also benefits the self.  It's kinda like an explanation of what some have described happening with social contract theory without all the duty to society bs.

Ethical egoism can lead to anarchy or a view of do whatever you want, however I don't think going to that extreme is logically necessary or sound and is the result of not fully understanding the repercussions of actions nor the human need to depend on others for survival.

[templeboy]

I hate to say this, but you do realize you basically are saying "yeah it doesn't make any philosophic sense, however I like it so its good."

I think I am trying to get at is that a moral system should be judged on what its effects would be if it was followed widely...how can this be an objectionable principle?

because you claim humanism is only not acceptable when the individual's goals outweigh the larger groups, how about we take this thought scenario back a couple of hundred of years ago when blacks were thought by the larger society to be lesser than whites.

No I am saying nothing like this. If the individuals goals are outweighing the larger groups goals, then that is not humanism, it is individualism...it is ethical egoism....the attitudes of whites towards non-whites two hundred years ago fail to the humanist principle not because we should treat all humans the same, but because there is no rational or empirical basis why black people should be treated differently to white people

If we are going to zoom out that far... if everything is pointless even humanism is pointless as the universe heads toward its inevitable death. This kinda sounds more nihilistic to me.

Yeah of course...it would be fair to say that the universe has a ethical nihilist view towards us

[Ihateusernames]

For my most interestingly wonderful words please see: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4328

I'm sure you are all just dyyyyyying to read them

[Ihateusernames]

Once again, for my most interestingly wonderful words please see: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4328

I'm sure you are all just dyyyyyying to read them

[kelltrill]

I understand that this topic has branched away from the issue of rape and has become more of a moral argument, but I have to get this out of my system.

First of all, I think you must be grossly arrogant for believing you've discovered the non-existence of God after billions/trillions of people for the past who-knows-how-many thousands of years have been contemplating this question with no definite answers in either direction.

First off, I really do like to think that the human race is somewhat more intelligent than it was thousands of years ago when we were still throwing rocks at our own shadows. All you're proving by making that statement is that you do not believe in progress and believe in a religiously homogenous culture, which is unrealistic to say the least.

Secondly, I wasn't trying to say that atheists are bad people as you are obviously implying that I'm implying. My point is to point out that it seems strange that we as humans have this idea that rape is "immoral" if it seems be beneficial to our naturalistic purpose.

Rape is about power and force and has nothing whatever to do with procreation. It is considered immoral because it is an emotionally and physically harmful act towards an unconsenting person. This is not rocket science.
Furthermore, I find your implication that non-religious people are morally bereft quite offensive. I was raised in a secular environment and know it's wrong to lie, cheat and steal. My parents never once used religion as an excuse for their inability to explain to me why something should be morally unnacceptable. My only hope is that one day more people will realise that god is not the answer to everything. Otherwise we're never going to move away from the point we're at right now: with generations of people too frightened to think for themselves.
"Why does the river flow down? Because God wishes it to."
"Why does the river flow up? Because God wishes it to."
People should not be okay with the answer to these two statements being exactly the same, otherwise we're just going to stagnate in our own ignorance and arrogance.

[Smarmy Of One]

I can't believe I am about to say this but maybe humanity does need religion since it seems to be the only thing that keeps people like precious theradwun here from raping everything in sight.

STAY IN CHURCH YOUNG MAN!

[LoneMateria]

I can't believe I am about to say this but maybe humanity does need religion since it seems to be the only thing that keeps people like precious theradwun here from raping everything in sight.

STAY IN CHURCH YOUNG MAN!

We all know its a bullshit excuse.  If there was no religion or God they would be accountable to themselves and society.  If they went out there and raped people they'd get caught and go to jail and lose 15 years of their life because they had a temper tantrum.  And they know that.  If someone honestly believed that if there was no God or religion it would be okay to commit these things in our society then they need to be committed to a mental institution.  What theradwun doesn't understand is that having this one shot at things makes this life infinitely more valuable.  Hiding under the security blanket of religion devalues life and often times destroys the morals that make people human.  Atheists make up abot 5% of the population of the US but only occupy 0.3% of its prisons.  What does this tell you about morality and God?  It tells me they are mutually exclusive.

[Smarmy Of One]

Oh, I agree with you 100%, I was just cracking a joke.

I don't think a trogg like theradwun deserves a straight answer.  

[LoneMateria]

Oh, I agree with you 100%, I was just cracking a joke.

I don't think a trogg like theradwun deserves a straight answer.  lol I know I was just explaining why to anyone who happens to by the whole atheists and morality crap.