Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Mischaracterization People Make About Atheism

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 7:04:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
https://www.youtube.com...

This isn't a view that represents Atheism; Dan Barker is obviously utilitarian. Plenty of Atheists are deontologists, and they would argue that rape is an action that is wrong in itself.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,753
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 7:17:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think Dan Barker's action makes sense. If there Aliens were definitely 100% going to kill everyone unless he raped someone, it would be moral for him to rape to save the earth. However, there are many other moral philosophies people can have. Just because someone lacks a belief in God, does not make them have a certain moral philosophy.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 7:20:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 7:17:13 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
I think Dan Barker's action makes sense. If there Aliens were definitely 100% going to kill everyone unless he raped someone, it would be moral for him to rape to save the earth.
Absolutely not. Not only is that active participation in the crime, but people have human worth and dignity that is not subject to utilitarian calculation. Rights are not tools that we sacrifice for the good of the majority. Doing nothing does not legitimize the crime that the aliens would perpetrate, and all moral blame falls on them.
However, there are many other moral philosophies people can have. Just because someone lacks a belief in God, does not make them have a certain moral philosophy.
That was my point.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 7:30:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The rights of a person are what we create from general rules in order to create an ordered society. We break the principles in order to protect society. Breaking rules is something to take into account, but not of a massive importance.

In short, the question is quite simple: would you make a life unpleasant to stop millions from death? Quite simply, yes. This may be slightly hyperbolic, but the premise still stands.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 7:33:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 7:30:46 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The rights of a person are what we create from general rules in order to create an ordered society.
Rights predate society. They are not subject to social bonds. We control our own bodies; society cannot control them for us.
We break the principles in order to protect society.
That doesn't mean we should do it. Is/ought logical fallacy.
Breaking rules is something to take into account, but not of a massive importance.

In short, the question is quite simple: would you make a life unpleasant to stop millions from death? Quite simply, yes. This may be slightly hyperbolic, but the premise still stands.

No. The suffering or future suffering of a massive number of people does not give them any moral force to control the bodies of others.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 7:35:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nothing has inherent value. Rocks, humans, trees, etc. are all entirely meaningless. What confers value on an object is our ability to subjectively impose our preferences on it.

My life also doesn't have inherent value. I give it value when I am free to pursue my own ends and engage in activities that I find worthwhile. But why does this matter? The end for all humans is happiness. Happiness is the proper end to have because it is not a means to any other end.

So, insofar as my ability to be happy stems from my ability to pursue my own ends and thus confer worth upon myself, the most moral thing for me to do would be to pursue my own ends.

Now, we run into a bit of a problem. What if my desire to pursue my own ends conflicts with another person's desire to pursue his own ends? For example, what if I gain happiness by killing others?

From this is it is clear that we must have constraints on actions. In order to maximize happiness for all people, we must ensure that all people are able to pursue their own ends

The best means through which we enable all people to pursue their own ends is through individual, hypothetical contracts that we make to not violate each others' ability to pursue ends . We constrain our interests if others constrain their interests so that we do not violate each others' autonomy. From these contracts, we create the basis of rights like life, liberty, and property. If we did not accept these contracts, there would be no reason for other people to do so either, and thus we could very easily violate autonomy and eliminate the basis for self-worth.

From this we can see that rights entail noninterference.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,753
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 7:40:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Absolutely not. Not only is that active participation in the crime, but people have human worth and dignity that is not subject to utilitarian calculation. Rights are not tools that we sacrifice for the good of the majority. Doing nothing does not legitimize the crime that the aliens would perpetrate, and all moral blame falls on them.

Without knowing if were going to be the person being raped, the person raping, or someone not affected, I think in general, humans would all agree that if this happened the person should carry out the rape to save humanity.

What if the Aliens were going to rape, torture and kill everyone instead of just killing them? I would be glad that someone raped someone to save me from being raped, tortured and killed. I am not a strict utilitarian, but in this case, two people can take the burden of billions.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 7:49:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In addition to disrespecting human dignity, utilitarianism is based on a flawed hedonic calculation that is subject to manipulation through mental conditioning.

Amartya Sen writes, Our desires and pleasure-taking abilities adjust to circumstances, especially to
make life bearable in adverse situations. The utility calculus can be deeply unfair to those who are persistently deprived: for example, the usual underdogs in stratified societies, perennially oppressed minorities in intolerant communities, traditionally precarious sharecroppers living in a world of uncertainty, routinely overworked sweatshop, employees in exploitative economic arrangements, hopelessly subdued
housewives in severely sexist cultures. The deprived people tend
to come to terms with their deprivation because of the sheer necessity
of survival, and they may, as a result, lack the courage to demand any
radical change, and may even adjust their desires and expectations to
what they unambitiously see as feasible.11 The mental metric of pleasure
or desire is just too malleable to be a firm guide to deprivation
and disadvantage.


I don't think Sen takes it far enough. If the hedonic calculus is subject to this type of manipulation, utilitarianism might even require that we mentally condition some to endure suffering for the "greater good" or even to minimize their own suffering. For example, we might be required to condition women to accept rape in nations in which rape is rampant. This would basically permit any harms at any time since the harms to those individuals would not be included in the calculations.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 7:51:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 7:40:41 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Absolutely not. Not only is that active participation in the crime, but people have human worth and dignity that is not subject to utilitarian calculation. Rights are not tools that we sacrifice for the good of the majority. Doing nothing does not legitimize the crime that the aliens would perpetrate, and all moral blame falls on them.

Without knowing if were going to be the person being raped, the person raping, or someone not affected, I think in general, humans would all agree that if this happened the person should carry out the rape to save humanity.

1. Ad populum logical fallacy

2. Their needs impose 0 obligations and give them absolutely no entitlements to use others.
What if the Aliens were going to rape, torture and kill everyone instead of just killing them? I would be glad that someone raped someone to save me from being raped, tortured and killed. I am not a strict utilitarian, but in this case, two people can take the burden of billions.

Why should those people take the burden of billions? Your suffering does not entitle you to use others. Moreover, you still haven't addressed the fact that you would be sharing in that crime whereas if the Aliens in were the only participants, they are the only people who can be morally condemned.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 7:52:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 7:49:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
In addition to disrespecting human dignity, utilitarianism is based on a flawed hedonic calculation that is subject to manipulation through mental conditioning.

Amartya Sen writes, Our desires and pleasure-taking abilities adjust to circumstances, especially to
make life bearable in adverse situations. The utility calculus can be deeply unfair to those who are persistently deprived: for example, the usual underdogs in stratified societies, perennially oppressed minorities in intolerant communities, traditionally precarious sharecroppers living in a world of uncertainty, routinely overworked sweatshop, employees in exploitative economic arrangements, hopelessly subdued
housewives in severely sexist cultures. The deprived people tend
to come to terms with their deprivation because of the sheer necessity
of survival, and they may, as a result, lack the courage to demand any
radical change, and may even adjust their desires and expectations to
what they unambitiously see as feasible.11 The mental metric of pleasure
or desire is just too malleable to be a firm guide to deprivation
and disadvantage.


I don't think Sen takes it far enough. If the hedonic calculus is subject to this type of manipulation, utilitarianism might even require that we mentally condition some to endure suffering for the "greater good" or even to minimize their own suffering. For example, we might be required to condition women to accept rape in nations in which rape is rampant. This would basically permit any harms at any time since the harms to those individuals would not be included in the calculations.

The implication of this, of course, is that utilitarianism collapses on itself and cannot be a guide to morality since once people no longer suffer harms from any action, no concepts of suffering and pleasure exist.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 7:53:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why should we even care about the suffering of others in the first place? Like, why should we even bother including it in the hedonic calculus?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 7:54:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Utilitarianism is also not a comprehensive ethical theory. What ought we do in situations in which the pain/pleasure calculation provides equal costs/benefits? Util provides no guide to action in this scenario.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,753
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:17:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago

Without knowing if were going to be the person being raped, the person raping, or someone not affected, I think in general, humans would all agree that if this happened the person should carry out the rape to save humanity.

1. Ad populum logical fallacy

Its not ad populum. I am arguing that people would willingly give up their right not to be raped or forced to rape. Right now, if people were asked if they would take the burden of raping or being raped if this situation happened, most people would willingly sign up. If a person who is picked to rape or be raped signed up, they must take the burden they signed up for. If someone wants other people to rape to save them, they also must be willing to rape.

2. Their needs impose 0 obligations and give them absolutely no entitlements to use others.

When deciding if an action is right or wrong, it is good to think about how much pain or pleasure it will cause. I think in this case, humans would preemptively agree to take the burden for each other if they were chosen. If someone does not preemptively agree to this, they would not have to rape/be raped, but will not be saved if someone else does.


Why should those people take the burden of billions? Your suffering does not entitle you to use others. Moreover, you still haven't addressed the fact that you would be sharing in that crime whereas if the Aliens in were the only participants, they are the only people who can be morally condemned.

You would not be sharing in the crime, you would be helping everyone else out. Everyone would live because of you. You would literally save everyone's life in the whole world. The Aliens will be morally condemned regardless. I believe humans would agree to rape/be raped if this situation occurred. If selected, by raping/being raped you are fulfilling your agreement mankind.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:25:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 9:17:32 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

Without knowing if were going to be the person being raped, the person raping, or someone not affected, I think in general, humans would all agree that if this happened the person should carry out the rape to save humanity.

1. Ad populum logical fallacy

Its not ad populum. I am arguing that people would willingly give up their right not to be raped or forced to rape. Right now, if people were asked if they would take the burden of raping or being raped if this situation happened, most people would willingly sign up. If a person who is picked to rape or be raped signed up, they must take the burden they signed up for. If someone wants other people to rape to save them, they also must be willing to rape.

Well, guess what? You have to ask them to consent to it. You cannot just rape them based on hypotheticals, and you cannot pressure them into making the decision you want. I most certainly would not consent.

Also, if someone consents to have sex to save humanity, that is no longer rape, so the scenario you are discussing does not even apply.
2. Their needs impose 0 obligations and give them absolutely no entitlements to use others.

When deciding if an action is right or wrong, it is good to think about how much pain or pleasure it will cause.
False. Actions are wrong or right in themselves. Their impacts do not cause them to be wrong or right.
I think in this case, humans would preemptively agree to take the burden for each other if they were chosen. If someone does not preemptively agree to this, they would not have to rape/be raped, but will not be saved if someone else does.

Nope. The aliens aren't going to shoot me if I don't agree to this scenario. I would be saved regardless of whether or not I consented (unless you propose murdering me, which is entirely immoral). Even if I benefit from other people being harmed in such a tangential manner, I am not a party to the crime. I didn't ask for the aliens to impose such a provision, so I should not be held responsible for the consequences if I refuse to comply.


Why should those people take the burden of billions? Your suffering does not entitle you to use others. Moreover, you still haven't addressed the fact that you would be sharing in that crime whereas if the Aliens in were the only participants, they are the only people who can be morally condemned.

You would not be sharing in the crime, you would be helping everyone else out.
You are sharing in the crime. You are agreeing to negotiate with the aggressors.
Everyone would live because of you.
So what? If you don't participate, you are not a party to the crime.
You would literally save everyone's life in the whole world.
Again, so what? The action is still wrong regardless of the consequences.
The Aliens will be morally condemned regardless. I believe humans would agree to rape/be raped if this situation occurred. If selected, by raping/being raped you are fulfilling your agreement mankind.

Well, you are obviously wrong since I would disagree, and we are discussing situations that involve people who DO NOT agree. Last time I checked, agreeing to sex was called consent.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,753
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:30:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 7:54:48 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Utilitarianism is also not a comprehensive ethical theory. What ought we do in situations in which the pain/pleasure calculation provides equal costs/benefits? Util provides no guide to action in this scenario.

I believe Utilitarianism is useful, but not perfect moral philosophy. A better guide to moral reasoning is Raul's theory of justice. Raul argues that we should imagine our place in society under a "veil of ignorance". That is, we do not know our place in society. We do not know if we will be smart, black, white, fat, athletic, stupid, or born in Iraq. Under this "veil of ignorance" we can agree on fair rules for society.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)

In the case of alien raping, if the billions of people on earth knew this might happen but did not know who would be selected to rape, people would agree on a social contract that people must rape to save everyone.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:36:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 9:30:46 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 8/29/2012 7:54:48 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Utilitarianism is also not a comprehensive ethical theory. What ought we do in situations in which the pain/pleasure calculation provides equal costs/benefits? Util provides no guide to action in this scenario.

I believe Utilitarianism is useful, but not perfect moral philosophy. A better guide to moral reasoning is Raul's theory of justice. Raul argues that we should imagine our place in society under a "veil of ignorance". That is, we do not know our place in society. We do not know if we will be smart, black, white, fat, athletic, stupid, or born in Iraq. Under this "veil of ignorance" we can agree on fair rules for society.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)

In the case of alien raping, if the billions of people on earth knew this might happen but did not know who would be selected to rape, people would agree on a social contract that people must rape to save everyone.

1. The "Veil of Ignorance" is not a moral philosophy.

2. You are making a massive assumption. I certainly would never agree to it. You are also leaving out the role of the person who is being raped. Since they wouldn't know whether or not they are being chosen to rape, there is no reason to believe that they would not act against this.

3. The Veil of Ignorance assumes that people can be stripped of their identities and make moral decisions, but they never can be because moral norms stem from one's identitty. At best, it's just a hypothetical scenario that has no basis in reality. See Sandel.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:37:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I see nothing wrong with having everyone share the burden equally instead of forcing the burden onto two people who don't agree to the scenario.
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:39:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 7:04:30 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

This isn't a view that represents Atheism; Dan Barker is obviously utilitarian. Plenty of Atheists are deontologists, and they would argue that rape is an action that is wrong in itself.

Love you dearly. But there are no mischaracterizations about Atheism once you deny the existence of God. If you knew more than what you were taught, which were false information, then you would not be so blinded by secular propaganda.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:41:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 7:54:48 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Utilitarianism is also not a comprehensive ethical theory. What ought we do in situations in which the pain/pleasure calculation provides equal costs/benefits? Util provides no guide to action in this scenario.

It makes no difference what we do in such a situation. Not every action necessarily has a moral and immoral action. If I use a pen instead of a pencil, then there is no answer to what is the moral action. That's like complaining that your knowledge of Hamlet doesn't help you work out how to sail a ship.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:43:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 7:33:38 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/29/2012 7:30:46 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The rights of a person are what we create from general rules in order to create an ordered society.
Rights predate society.

No they don't.

They are not subject to social bonds.

Yes they are.

We control our own bodies; society cannot control them for us.

Societies dictate what our rights are all the time: that's because we are society.

We break the principles in order to protect society.
That doesn't mean we should do it. Is/ought logical fallacy.

We have an obligation to protect society. Therefore, we ought to break certain principles. Obligations bridge the is-ought gap.

Breaking rules is something to take into account, but not of a massive importance.

In short, the question is quite simple: would you make a life unpleasant to stop millions from death? Quite simply, yes. This may be slightly hyperbolic, but the premise still stands.

No. The suffering or future suffering of a massive number of people does not give them any moral force to control the bodies of others.

Yes it very much does.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:43:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 9:41:29 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/29/2012 7:54:48 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Utilitarianism is also not a comprehensive ethical theory. What ought we do in situations in which the pain/pleasure calculation provides equal costs/benefits? Util provides no guide to action in this scenario.

It makes no difference what we do in such a situation. Not every action necessarily has a moral and immoral action. If I use a pen instead of a pencil, then there is no answer to what is the moral action. That's like complaining that your knowledge of Hamlet doesn't help you work out how to sail a ship.

Those are amoral situations. I am discussing something like the following:

Suppose in a specific situation that we determine that the harm to a rape victim is equally as corrosive to the rapist if he does not rape her. What is the proper action? Utilitarianism provides no way to resolve the scenario. Deontology does.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:45:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 9:43:09 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/29/2012 7:33:38 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/29/2012 7:30:46 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The rights of a person are what we create from general rules in order to create an ordered society.
Rights predate society.

No they don't.

Yes they do. I provided a derivation of rights.
They are not subject to social bonds.

Yes they are.

No, they are not. People form society to protect rights. Therefore, society cannot strip people of rights. There is no incentive to join society if this is the case
We control our own bodies; society cannot control them for us.

Societies dictate what our rights are all the time: that's because we are society.

Society should not be doing this. This is an is/ought fallacy.
We break the principles in order to protect society.
That doesn't mean we should do it. Is/ought logical fallacy.

We have an obligation to protect society.
Absolutely not. Society has no right to exist. People do not exist for the sake of society; society exists for the sake of the people. I have no obligation to defend any society.
Therefore, we ought to break certain principles. Obligations bridge the is-ought gap.

See above.
Breaking rules is something to take into account, but not of a massive importance.

In short, the question is quite simple: would you make a life unpleasant to stop millions from death? Quite simply, yes. This may be slightly hyperbolic, but the premise still stands.

No. The suffering or future suffering of a massive number of people does not give them any moral force to control the bodies of others.

Yes it very much does.

No, it does not. Your suffering gives you no right to my body or my property.
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:46:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 9:43:20 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/29/2012 9:41:29 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/29/2012 7:54:48 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Utilitarianism is also not a comprehensive ethical theory. What ought we do in situations in which the pain/pleasure calculation provides equal costs/benefits? Util provides no guide to action in this scenario.

It makes no difference what we do in such a situation. Not every action necessarily has a moral and immoral action. If I use a pen instead of a pencil, then there is no answer to what is the moral action. That's like complaining that your knowledge of Hamlet doesn't help you work out how to sail a ship.

Those are amoral situations. I am discussing something like the following:

Suppose in a specific situation that we determine that the harm to a rape victim is equally as corrosive to the rapist if he does not rape her. What is the proper action? Utilitarianism provides no way to resolve the scenario. Deontology does.

What is the obsession about rape. There are many victims out here in the world who deal with all other forms of abuse, mental and physical. Rape is a serious issue, but what about your views about abortion. We here at DDO find this to be quite questionable. How do you value life Lady Royale ? And where do you as a young Woman draw the line.
That is the question.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:48:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Choosing between a pen and a pencil does not qualify because we are not discussing harms against people. Those are a matter of personal preference. Plus, choosing a pen over a pencil might cause a difference in pleasure.
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:50:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 9:48:26 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Choosing between a pen and a pencil does not qualify because we are not discussing harms against people. Those are a matter of personal preference. Plus, choosing a pen over a pencil might cause a difference in pleasure.

Forward words coming from a froward mind.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,753
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:53:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, guess what? You have to ask them to consent to it. You cannot just rape them based on hypotheticals, and you cannot pressure them into making the decision you want. I most certainly would not consent.

1. If the specific person must be raped, it would be okay to rape them anyway. In general society create a social contract that this action must be done for the greater good.

2. If anyone could be raped, by not consenting, they are just pushing the burden onto someone else, which is immoral. They were randomly selected to be raped, it is unfair for them to push this burden onto someone else.

Also, if someone consents to have sex to save humanity, that is no longer rape, so the scenario you are discussing does not even apply.

Well, it is rape in the sense that they do not consent to sex, and they are being forced to have sex to fulfill their obligation to society.



False. Actions are wrong or right in themselves. Their impacts do not cause them to be wrong or right.

I don't think so. Maximizing pleasure definitely should be taken into consideration. In this case, I believe rape is moral.


Nope. The aliens aren't going to shoot me if I don't agree to this scenario. I would be saved regardless of whether or not I consented (unless you propose murdering me, which is entirely immoral). Even if I benefit from other people being harmed in such a tangential manner, I am not a party to the crime. I didn't ask for the aliens to impose such a provision, so I should not be held responsible for the consequences if I refuse to comply.

Okay, it seems you would be saved, but you should be upset about it. If you knew this was occurring you should be rooting for the Aliens to kill you, and trying to persuade the person not to rape. It is wrong for you to want other people to save you, and view saving other people as immoral. If you are saved, you should feel disgusted with the outcome.

You are sharing in the crime. You are agreeing to negotiate with the aggressors.

Yes, but by negotiating, you are helping everyone else out.

So what? If you don't participate, you are not a party to the crime.

Yes, but by not negotiating, you are not a party to saving the world

Again, so what? The action is still wrong regardless of the consequences.

I think saving everyone makes the action right.

Well, you are obviously wrong since I would disagree, and we are discussing situations that involve people who DO NOT agree. Last time I checked, agreeing to sex was called consent.

I think that if you were faced with certain death, yet could live by taking a one in 6 billion chance of being raped, you would choose to take the chance of rape.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:56:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 7:20:45 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Doing nothing does not legitimize the crime that the aliens would perpetrate, and all the moral blame falls on them.

Good! You're Blameless.
Congratulations!

Now the entire world has suffered a toruous horrible death..
But it's not your fault.

Good Job ;)

Now... one would think that the chances that they would actually decide what they do based upon what you do with the baby are rather tiny..
Rather they're almost certainly just sadistic pricks looking to torture you/see what you'll do.. and they'll Kill everyone, or not, regardless of what you do..
So I still wouldn't think doing what they say would be the best thing to do..

But, if they gave me an ultimatum of something Horrible happening or my having to do something, relatively, less horrible.. and I thought they were sincere.. I'd do that which I consider less horrible... so that there's less horribleness in the world ;)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,753
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:59:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago

2. You are making a massive assumption. I certainly would never agree to it. You are also leaving out the role of the person who is being raped. Since they wouldn't know whether or not they are being chosen to rape, there is no reason to believe that they would not act against this.

Under the veil of ignorance, you would not know if you are being raped. If you were faced with certain death or a 1 in 6 billion chance of being raped. I believe you would choose to take your chances.

3. The Veil of Ignorance assumes that people can be stripped of their identities and make moral decisions, but they never can be because moral norms stem from one's identitty. At best, it's just a hypothetical scenario that has no basis in reality. See Sandel.

To imagine a veil of ignorance you just need the ability to empathize with other kinds of people. If you can empathize well, you have the ability to imagine a veil of ignorance. If you cannot empathize, then you lack the ability to morally reason.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 10:02:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 9:53:57 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Well, guess what? You have to ask them to consent to it. You cannot just rape them based on hypotheticals, and you cannot pressure them into making the decision you want. I most certainly would not consent.

1. If the specific person must be raped, it would be okay to rape them anyway. In general society create a social contract that this action must be done for the greater good.

1. The social contract does not exist.

2. I have already derived a theory of rights that notes that they are inviolable. Nobody has the right to use others without permission for any purpose.
2. If anyone could be raped, by not consenting, they are just pushing the burden onto someone else, which is immoral. They were randomly selected to be raped, it is unfair for them to push this burden onto someone else.

1. Chance does not have any moral force. Rawls himself argues this, so you just destroyed your own argument.

2. If I never consented to be placed into such a lottery, then placing me in it and then selecting my name is a violation of my rights. The lottery results only have moral force if I consent to be placed in the lottery in the first place.
Also, if someone consents to have sex to save humanity, that is no longer rape, so the scenario you are discussing does not even apply.

Well, it is rape in the sense that they do not consent to sex, and they are being forced to have sex to fulfill their obligation to society.

No, if they clearly consented to the sex, it's not rape. Being forced implies that the consent never occured.



False. Actions are wrong or right in themselves. Their impacts do not cause them to be wrong or right.

I don't think so. Maximizing pleasure definitely should be taken into consideration. In this case, I believe rape is moral.

Why should we care about maximizing pleasure? Why do people's preferences even matter? You have not justified it.

Plus, I don't care what you think. You haven't argued against the notion that actions are right or wrong in themselves independent of their consequences.


Nope. The aliens aren't going to shoot me if I don't agree to this scenario. I would be saved regardless of whether or not I consented (unless you propose murdering me, which is entirely immoral). Even if I benefit from other people being harmed in such a tangential manner, I am not a party to the crime. I didn't ask for the aliens to impose such a provision, so I should not be held responsible for the consequences if I refuse to comply.

Okay, it seems you would be saved, but you should be upset about it. If you knew this was occurring you should be rooting for the Aliens to kill you, and trying to persuade the person not to rape. It is wrong for you to want other people to save you, and view saving other people as immoral. If you are saved, you should feel disgusted with the outcome.

No, I don't want other people to save me. I want nothing to do with the scenario. I am not morally culpable for the crimes that people perpetrate on others.


You are sharing in the crime. You are agreeing to negotiate with the aggressors.

Yes, but by negotiating, you are helping everyone else out.

You are still sharing in the crime.
So what? If you don't participate, you are not a party to the crime.

Yes, but by not negotiating, you are not a party to saving the world

So what? You are not morally culpable for the crime?
Again, so what? The action is still wrong regardless of the consequences.

I think saving everyone makes the action right.
Based on what? You haven't even explained why we should care about people's preferences or suffering.

Well, you are obviously wrong since I would disagree, and we are discussing situations that involve people who DO NOT agree. Last time I checked, agreeing to sex was called consent.

I think that if you were faced with certain death, yet could live by taking a one in 6 billion chance of being raped, you would choose to take the chance of rape.

No, I would face death. Death is a preferable option to having my self-worth and autonomy stripped from me. At least if I die, I can no longer suffer.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 10:04:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 9:59:49 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

2. You are making a massive assumption. I certainly would never agree to it. You are also leaving out the role of the person who is being raped. Since they wouldn't know whether or not they are being chosen to rape, there is no reason to believe that they would not act against this.

Under the veil of ignorance, you would not know if you are being raped. If you were faced with certain death or a 1 in 6 billion chance of being raped. I believe you would choose to take your chances.

You would also not know if you are not being raped. It's basically a wash. I know what I would choose; I would rather face death than participate in a moral crime/be a victim of such a crime.
3. The Veil of Ignorance assumes that people can be stripped of their identities and make moral decisions, but they never can be because moral norms stem from one's identitty. At best, it's just a hypothetical scenario that has no basis in reality. See Sandel.

To imagine a veil of ignorance you just need the ability to empathize with other kinds of people.
If you can empathize well, you have the ability to imagine a veil of ignorance. If you cannot empathize, then you lack the ability to morally reason.

You are making a huge assumption (morality is based on emotions rather than rationality). Are you seriously arguing that rational theories of morality aren't even moral theories? LOL