News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

What makes this wrong?

Started by Drummer Guy, April 24, 2015, 03:29:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

drunkenshoe

Yes, exactly. And worse than that he is also doing that by twisting the definition of consent. But you would be surprised how often people think, 'what's the big deal if he/she didn't feel anything -or didn't know- when they're raped'. Most people's perception on rape is something out of a movie, violent rape that happens under rare conditions, by 'monster' scale villains. That common view is closely related to the scenario offered here.


"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Atheon

Because fucking kids is wrong.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca

SGOS

A variation of that argument was given to me in regards to abortion:  "If it's OK to kill a fetus because it is not aware, then it should be OK to kill a severely retarded person that isn't aware, right?  Or how about a relative that tells the doctor to pull your life support if you are in a vegetative state?"

He was countering the lack of sentience of the fetus which I had mentioned.  Now I wouldn't kill a bed ridden hydrocephalic, but I countered that I hoped someone would have the presence of mind to pull my plug if I were in a vegetative state (which seemed to terminate further argument from him).  His argument does nothing to change my position, but it does have a sort of logic to it that tests my lack of concern for a non thinking fetus.

In thinking about this now, killing a fetus or a hydrocephalic is more of an empathetic dilemma, but not so much a moral dilemma for me.  I dunno.  I'd like to know how others might respond in that situation.

Mike Cl

Quote from: SGOS on April 25, 2015, 10:41:14 AM
A variation of that argument was given to me in regards to abortion:  "If it's OK to kill a fetus because it is not aware, then it should be OK to kill a severely retarded person that isn't aware, right?  Or how about a relative that tells the doctor to pull your life support if you are in a vegetative state?"

He was countering the lack of sentience of the fetus which I had mentioned.  Now I wouldn't kill a bed ridden hydrocephalic, but I countered that I hoped someone would have the presence of mind to pull my plug if I were in a vegetative state (which seemed to terminate further argument from him).  His argument does nothing to change my position, but it does have a sort of logic to it that tests my lack of concern for a non thinking fetus.

In thinking about this now, killing a fetus or a hydrocephalic is more of an empathetic dilemma, but not so much a moral dilemma for me.  I dunno.  I'd like to know how others might respond in that situation.
Okay, I'll take a stab.
1.  A fetus is unaware--I regard it in the same light as a guy masturbating and killing all those potential baby starters.  Or a woman ovulating and expelling an used egg.  So, it is a decision that each person should be able to make for themselves. 
2.  Killing a severely retarded person.  I guess it depends upon the situation.  Is that person in constant pain?  If so, then the kindest thing to do would be to put them to sleep.  Otherwise, who is to say  if they are tormented or have any quality of life.  I don't really see a connection to #1.
3.  I can't say for anybody else, but if I am ever in a brain dead state, or a state of hopeless pain, then put me down!  This is a decision that each of us should be able to make for ourselves.  And I don't see how this is connected to either #1 or #2.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Solitary

  :wtff: Maybe we should get Bill Cosby's take on this? It's against the rules of our society that say it is wrong to rape a child, or an adult. It has nothing to do with religion and its moral code. Morality isn't just about hurting someone, or we wouldn't have armies and police trained to kill, or we would be guilty for self defense, or defense of another person. Is it OK to rape an animal? A better question is why would this be OK, even if God ordained it, like a lot of other sick stuff He has ordained? The person asking this question is using absolute black and white thinking that is logically wrong, like so many shall not's in Christian morality. Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

SGOS

With my above thoughts in mind, I think the OPs example, as well as my own about abortion, only become problematic if one subscribes to the idea that morality has to be chiseled in stone, like a god given morality, or if one believes that morality can be decided by logic.  If there is no god given morality, humans determine their own morality.  Atheists are free to decide morality for themselves, so we consider human laws, cultural norms, empathetic responses, and other resources to decide on morality.

But the thing is that theists also determine their own morality exactly the same way.  They just support it with a myth for which they have no evidence, and then go on to claim that it is therefore superior, eternal, and sacred.  Then they go on to create a scenario that creates a logical dilemma with their theoretical bullshit.  But perhaps morality is neither god given or purely logical.  In fact, I don't think it is.  We are talking about human VALUES, which have only cursory relationships with the imagined divine, or the process of logic.

That's what those cute little values exercises are all about in high school classes or values seminars.  You know, exercises like 5 people of varying backgrounds in a life raft with enough food to save only 3 people.  Who do you throw into the sea?  Or do you all die?  Such is the nature of values, they vary from person to person.  And likewise, that is the nature of morality, unless you are a Christian and dogmatically pontificate it's been ordained by a god.

SGOS

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 25, 2015, 11:15:48 AM

2.  Killing a severely retarded person.  I guess it depends upon the situation.  Is that person in constant pain?  If so, then the kindest thing to do would be to put them to sleep.  Otherwise, who is to say  if they are tormented or have any quality of life.  I don't really see a connection to #1.
3.  I can't say for anybody else, but if I am ever in a brain dead state, or a state of hopeless pain, then put me down!  This is a decision that each of us should be able to make for ourselves.  And I don't see how this is connected to either #1 or #2.

I think they relate because the arguments are based on similar tactics.  The dilemmas are set up by the theist appealing to the need for consistency.  You are challenged to be consistent using only logic or the Bible.  But consistency is sometimes not possible.  Therefore, YOU LOSE!  However, the theist is not required to be consistent.  He uses as his source the Bible, or some theistic dogma that is inconsistent in itself.  Since this is all divine, he does not have to follow the rules he sets for you.  HE WINS!

Hijiri Byakuren

Alright, moral pyramid time.

|Me
|-Do not desire harm
|-May harm if harmed
|-Consent (to action performed by other)
|--Cannot consent if lacking necessary device
|---Speech
|---Brain development (pre-frontal lobe)
|--Lack of consent leads to harm
|-Mine
|--Wish to prevent harm to
|--Baby
|---Unable to consent

|Society
|-Includes other individuals defining themselves as "me"
|-Will sometimes help me if helped
|--If not reciprocated, specific "me" no longer receives help from other specific "me"
|--Harm from one can be mended or avenged by help from another
|---Incentive to help or avenge those who are harmed

This is a small sub-section of a larger chain that ultimately illustrates an individual's secular values. If a theist tries to challenge this by saying it is ultimately selfish, challenge them to explain why it is bad to be selfish.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

the_antithesis

#23
Quote from: trdsf on April 25, 2015, 02:34:31 AM
Let's pare it down to its barest essentials by eliminating all the squicky bits: even if the comatose person were an adult, it's still easy to call this wrong without having to split hairs.

There's no consent.

Game over right there, without any regard to who's doing what to who for whatever reason.

This, actually.

The problem with these sort of ... questions... is that they use hot button topics, pedophilia in this case, to distract you from seeing what is actually going on.

You'd said your friend who'd posed this ... question is religious and I am not fucking surprised. Emotional manipulation is not so much a stock and trade tool to them as a reflex, a mental tick. It's as if they'd go bugshit if they didn't emotionally manipulate someone every five fucking seconds.

Johan

For the life of me I cannot understand why so many people think its impossible for anyone to have sound moral judgement without god.

Every fucking five year old that ever set foot inside a sandbox understands that the reason you don't go over and knock down the other kids sand castle is because you don't like when the other kid comes over and knocks down your sand castle. Its not fucking rocket science.

Therefore you do not have nonconsensual sex with a person because you would not like it if someone had nonconsensual sex with you. Its not fucking rocket science.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful

Green Bottle

If someone asked me the same question i think id fkn punch them,  seriously.........
God doesnt exist, but if he did id tell him to ''Fuck Off''

Termin

#26
  It's wrong because having love , compassion, and empathy for a person does not stop simply because they are unaware or unconscious.

   
Termin 1:1

Evolution is probably the slowest biological process on planet earth, the only one that comes close is the understanding of it by creationists.

hrdlr110

#27
Quote from: Munch on April 24, 2015, 05:58:10 PM
What makes it wrong is that a man is raping a child, end of. I dunno how someone can have any questionable moral basis of saying 'well he won't come out of the coma so it can't hurt him', thats a fucked up as saying you dug up someones corpse to fuck that, infact its worse because the kid is still alive, and the pedophile is having unconsensual sex with a child.

Doctors and nurses would be hurt by this. And a child would not simply have nobody, he would have foster parents or carers who would be responsible for him.

Care givers for sure,  foster parents maybe, but if not, this child is still part of society - a society that does not advocate child rape - allowing this man to pay for sexual services is practically advocating child rape.
It's a bit scary that you (OP) really don't see, or couldn't argue what was wrong with this. Wow!
Q for theists; how can there be freewill and miracles? And, how can prayer exist in an environment as regimented as "gods plan"?

"I'm a polyatheist, there are many gods I don't believe in." - Dan Fouts

Termin


Morality did not evolve because there were punishments for immoral acts, it evolved because there wasn't.
Termin 1:1

Evolution is probably the slowest biological process on planet earth, the only one that comes close is the understanding of it by creationists.

Aletheia

Reminds me of Great Expectations. The main character's good fortune was tainted because it was derived from a criminal benefactor.

Logically, you take the money because the child being alive is of greater value to the parents than the child being dead - dead children do not grow into adults capable of producing subsequent generations.

Morally, the child receiving aid from a sexual predator can harm the child's quality of life - by tainting the child's good fortune, or inviting a predator into the child's life through emotional manipulation from the "kind" act. It would be morally wrong to encourage saving a life when the method of saving it is guaranteed to reduce the quality of life tremendously.

Quote from: Jakenessif you believe in the supernatural, you do not understand modern science. Period.