How would you demonstrate, for instance, that rape is wrong based on moral realism? — Tom Storm

The same way a theist demonstrates the existence of his diety. He doesn't. Such is a foundational faith statement, from which all sorts of conclusions derive.

I'd submit without that faith foundation, nihilism and amoralism results.

You've got to have faith in something I suppose.

think the recipient of the joke's "hurt" is the audience himself or herself. The relief comes from not hurting that much actually. The audience feels that the joke and the joke teller outsmarted him or her... and the relief comes from the fact that it's not really antagonistic but rather friendly. — god must be atheist

Sounds like some projection perhaps on your part. Not everyone is braced for impact when the comedian comes on stage. I can think that might be the case with some comedians, but think of Barney telling jokes to kids. There would be no edge there

goes on to explain how moral absolutism is a bit silly, and tell the funny story about Kant thinking it wrong to lie to save someone from being murdered. — Banno

We can speak of absolutism in the generic or debate the nuances of the categorical imperative. I do think Kant's efforts are more successful than the consequentialist's, but I've posited him as the holder of all answers.

Focusing on the Ethics Center's definition, I don't understand what it means by "regardless of context " Even in a starkly absolutist system like divine command theory, killing is permissible sometimes. That sometimes is contextual

A better interpretation of Kant (and of absolutism generally) would be to say "regardless of consequence." That would mean whether you should lie to the murderer at the door to save a life is possibly answerable in the affirmative if you have a moral absolute that innocent life ought be preserved whenever possible.

The distinction being in prioritizing moral directives versus evaluating for preferential consequences.

Keep in mind here that this turn of the debate from your reference to Kant moved it from a debate of absolutism versus relativism to one of deontology versus consequentialism. How the 2 interplay is something I'd have to think more on.

I'd tend to agree that Utlitarianism is relativistic in terms of it evaluating a population's present pleasure/happiness, but the principle itself dictating such an evaluation must occur appears absolute, suggesting it is not acceptable to reject a properly computed Utilitarian result ever.

How Mill sustains his view that liberty is an absolute good, despite his Utilitarianism is problematic as well, but that's a Mill problem, as above was just a Kant problem.

moral statements are not mere preferences, because of preferences taken only apply only to apply to me, where as a moral statement is taken to apply to everybody. — Banno

In thinking about this, if draw a further distinction. Consider "one ought not steal" versus "one ought eat one's vegetables." The first, I'd submit is not a conditional. You ought not steal period. If you must add a conditional, it would be simply to reassert it's meaning: "You ought not steal if you are to be a moral person." Consider the second though, it's not a moral directive, but an implied conditional. That is: "You ought eat your vegetables if you want to be healthy and strong like your father."

It's the lack of conditional as well that elevates it to the ethical.

Really? So, what is moral absolutism? That might be a good place to start. — Banno

Wiki knows all:

"Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Well, who else will you trust? Who better? — Banno

And what am I trusting? If Joe says "Bob stole the money," am I evaluating Joe's character, Joe's motives, Joe's veracity, Joe's ability to have correctly seen the crime, Joe's intellect in assessing the many facts that have led him to that conclusion, or Joe's temperament in being able to rationally decide?

My point being that there are all sorts of things that I rely upon when evaluating other's contributions to my conclusions. If your suggestion is that I will look to my reasons to determine if rape is wrong and compare them to other people's, then you are offering, at least in theory, an objective, universal basis for right and wrong and describing my search for truth. That is, I'm not satisfied with just declaring my ability to self declare right and wrong. How I trust my reasons versus another's will be subject to all sorts of considerations (as in the Joe example), but I don't give myself absolute trust.

Not knowing what is morally demanded of us is something that causes most moral creatures occasional distress, and we do resort to others and our own reflections to try to figure it out, meaning we must be accepting there is some objective standard for what that moral reality is.

Sorry, but this is a blatant disregard for humans' fundamental reality. I just said. There are fundamental things that we hold dear to us. Disgust with rape is not taught. The body knows without being told. So, yes, rape is immoral. — L'éléphant

And so those who aren't disgusted by rape, do we declare them evil? And they declare themselves not evil. So who's right?

Don't miss my point here: I agree the rapist is wrong, but I deny its wrongness is simply social convention or a genetically dominant trait. I suggest it's more than that

Rape is wrong and we agree it is wrong.

Drop the "because".

Now, is rape wrong? Do you agree? If so, we can get on with other things. If not, then... well, there are all sorts of possibilities. — Banno

If rape is wrong even if we disagree that it's wrong, then you're arguing moral absolutism, in which case we agree. I think we don't though, but you may clarify

Your bold "you" misses the point, unless you suggest I, Hanover, have the godly power of decreeing right from wrong. I'd replace it with "anyone", and the answer is yes. If we let our prisoners vote, assuming voting is how we sort the good from the bad, in the district that encompasses the worst prison, rape is good.

If rape is wrong because we have agreed it is wrong, it is good when we change our mind.

would be a mistake to think that because something is undefined, it is meaningless. — Banno

The reference to Ecclesiastes was to provide a counter to the idea that religion does not include existential doubting and to quell your whole enterprise of finding a few key terms to focus on in your quest for a definition of "religion."

In any event, don't get too focused on the word "meaningless" in that translation. The more accurate translation is probably "vapor." https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1/what-translation-best-translates-the-word-vanity-in-the-kjv-in-ecclesiastes

"Vanity" is a common translation as well.

We can't even define the meaning of meaningless. Ironic I guess.

But so much of religion is the opposite; the certainty of faith runs whole against what you set out here. Faith is "standing before the world with the presumption of knowing." — Banno

But see: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%201&version=NIV

don't think you've understood what is happening here.

↪Hanover , too, it seems. — Banno

Oh please. I'm trying to decipher your objective here as much as you are trying to decipher mine

DO you think I would disagree with that? I'm the one who repeats ad nauseam "Don't look to the meaning, look to the use". — Banno

OK, but you're looking at other people's usage, not your own experience. You're watching the animals in the zoo and telling the monkeys what it is to be a monkey. I'm saying hop in the cage.

At present we have ritual, transcendent hierarchies and longing as core aspects of religion. — Banno

And you gained this insight from your reading, your time here, or in the pew?

I'm not going to deny there are elements of what you say present in various religions, but I will deny entirely you have come close to capturing the essence (to the extent that word makes sense), at least from my perspective from my seat in the pew, of what religion can be (and it certainly can fall quite short).

It's like asking what it's like to play soccer. It's all about ritual, hierarchy, authority, mindless loyalty. Yes, but that's not why we play. If it were, you might ask why we choose just to be burdened with odd restrictions.

If this interests you, just go to whatever religious service you desire and gather actual first hand knowledge. Religion is about doing. Otherwise you're just watching odd people do odd things and wondering why otherwise reasonable people play this game.

Show me the systems that have been collectively employed/directed that are meant to help provide standards. — Ennui Elucidator

The standards have been set by celebrity culture. Your question is what has been done to counterbalance it.

How do we organize this pushback without having to rely upon the help of the book burners and pro-lifers? MAGA!

How can you know a cup doesn't have an essence? — baker

Could be what was in that Pulp Fiction briefcase.

Of course they are myths. That doesn't make them wrong. Saying. Lord of the Rings is not an accurate account of the history of the world is neither useful nor cogent. — Banno

Nice.

Is it porn satire or just garbage? — jgill

It's celebrated as sex positive because it discusses female sexuality without judgment.

If parents have abdicated their responsibility of setting sexual behavior norms to their children, you can't expect those same people to vote to make sexual norms a matter for law enforcement.

I just learned what a W.A.P. is. Apparently an acronym for a number one song by Cardi B that Wiki described as:

"WAP received widespread critical acclaim for its sex-positive message, while some social conservative commentators criticized its explicit nature."

Here are the first lyrics to whet your palate for more:

"Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, you fucking with some wet ass pussy
Bring a bucket and a mop for this wet ass pussy
Give me everything you got for this wet ass pussy
Beat it up, nigga, catch a charge
Extra large and extra hard
Put this pussy right in yo' face
Swipe your nose like a credit card
Hop on top, I want a ride
I do a kegel while it's inside
Spit in my mouth, look at my eyes
This pussy is wet, come take a dive."

What's a guy supposed to think women want, an ice cream cone and have her back by 10? Why do you suspect the men (barely men at that) are driving this train and not the women?

Surely you say she wouldn't want to be choked, and it's the man who must be overstepping to think that, right? She must be the victim in that case. Well, read on:

"He got some money, then that's where I'm headed
Pussy A-1, just like his credit
He got a beard, well, I'm tryna wet it
I let him taste it, and now he diabetic
I don't wanna spit, I wanna gulp
I wanna gag, I wanna choke
I want you to touch that lil' dangly thing that swing in the back of my throat"

Who do we arrest, him or her? She just got herself a wet ass pussy that needs tending to, that's all. Sex positive. That's what this is. Stop being a fuddy duddy.

But when we actually use a word, we assume, take for granted it has an essence. — baker

Maybe, I don't know what incorrect assumptions people make, but why is it relevant that we evaluate our incorrect knee jerk reactions?

the contrary, it's instructive to look into the processes of the meaning of words precisely when it comes to "loaded topics" like religion. — baker

Of course. But just like cups neither have essences, which was my point.

So the very first human was a Jew? Wouldn't that make every human a Jew? If not then how did the first Jew become a Jew? — Harry Hindu

If you're asking for the biblical account, no, Adam wasn't Jewish. The Hebrews were chosen to receive the Torah at Mt. Sinai after fleeing Egypt, so the story goes.

If you're looking fur a more historically accurate account of when rabbinical Jewish law developed dictating who is a Jew, I'd assume after the 1st century CE after the fall of the second temple.

I'm also not advocating here the Orthodox definition of who is a Jew over other viewpoints, but only indicating it is one. The Reforn have a very different view

This is the same as saying, "religion" is just scribbles on this page. — Harry Hindu

There can be 20 potential criteria that every religion has, with 2 particular examples not having any overlap, meaning 2 examples would not share an essential similar trait

My point here is that even if you wish to maintain your antiquated essentialist views, your above criticism does not logically follow.

There is no god. We make our own purpose. — Banno

Which is what? To help your fellow man and woman, love and educate your kids, be a force of happiness to all? Why? Seems meaningless to simply make someone's stay as comfortable as possible if you admit there was no reason for them to come and stay in the first place.

It's like being Sisyphus' water boy, tending kindly to him, convincing yourself your altruism and goodness matters, ignoring the fact that you're all involved in a meaningless struggle that will eventually end with your death and then eventually the destruction of the world.

We can easily criticize their work as insufficiently philosophical but the the point is they were writing polemical works, for the average reader, they were not engaged in serious philosophy. If they had been writing philosophy, they would have struggled to sell books — Tom Storm

I found the Dawkins' book I read a general primer on evolution, and I can't imagine it threatened any theists other than Creationists.

Maybe there's a political need to stamp out those peculiar literalists, but the weakness of their position is so obvious, it's not clear why a philosopher would expend much time defeating them.

If there is no God, there is no teleos and there is no good. "Good for what? " is a meaningless question if there is no what, no aim, no objective.

What does it mean to be a "Jew" if not performing some ritual — Harry Hindu

You are a Jew if your mother was a Jew. Judaism is not even based upon your belief system.

"Religion" is not a term with an essence.

What makes you think god/s are against rape (have you read the Old Testament/Tanakh)? What makes you think a god's moral positions are useful, if they can even be identified? — Tom Storm

Too far afield here and really a massive strawman. No one has argued the Bible (or any other text) represents the word of God. I'm not arguing divine command theory. I'm arguing moral realism, asserting an actual right and wrong beyond the opinion of humans. Our understanding of morality, just like the rest of reality, is through observation and reason and it is refined over time. That is, today's understanding of morality is superior to 500 years ago. We're not just flittering randomly over time regarding what is good and evil, but are getting closer to the truth.

Although morality does not stand on absolute grounds that does not mean that we do not stand absolutely for or against certain actions. — Fooloso4

You're just describing cognitive dissonance. Sure, we can be absolutely opposed to rape and treat it as if no person can question its immorality ever, but why we suspend our reason and afford it absolute evil status when we know it's really just a subjective preference just means we've arrived at an interesting coping mechanism in order to navigate this godless world.

A note on murder — Banno

If you're interested: https://tjpnews.com/torah-makes-distinction-between-murder-killing/

I'm pretty confident that you agree that rape is wrong — Banno

The expectation of an incontrovertible moral principle is naive, even childish. — Banno

You are confident we are in agreement that rape is wrong. Why? Just because I'm a Western educated law abiding adult similar enough in background to you that I must share this norm? Is that the extent of it?

My question is asked because we know your confidence does not arise because we both have similar reasons to object to rape (as same would childish, like Kant or Bentham I suppose), so then where does it come from? It's not from reason and not from the heavens, so I'm running out of options.

And rape is not as universally condmned as we might hope, and certainly not as much in antiquity as today.
What causes the lack of confidence in the evil of rape among those who shrug it off? Just that they're evil (i.e. "morally bankrupt") and be obviously circular?

My point here is to either ask you accept that rape (or slavery or genocide) (1) has been moral at one point and now it's not or (2) was never moral but was mistaken as moral.

Pick your poison. I choose 2.

both instances we have reasons to condemn the rapist. And with more powerful arguments than 'god says so.'

Can you demonstrate an objective morality? — Tom Storm

You've just presented an objective basis for determining morality. You're not arguing relatavism any more.

If "flourishing" is the objective goal, you've got to offer some reason why. If it is just because it is, that is equivalent to "god says so."

Belief in a morality that transcends time and place requires belief in some kind of "afterlife" (such as in the sense of the Christian afterlife, the Hindu reincarnation, or Buddhist rebirth).

Without God's judgment or karma, the notion of justice doesn't apply, and without justice, morality is unintelligible. — baker

This is idiosyncratic to certain religions, but not logically dictated.

Judaic views vary, although the afterlife is not posited for the purposes of meting out eternal rewards and punishments. It is used to purge one of sin in order to return the person to his holy state. It is a time of atonement, not punishment, and not to exceed 12 months (cool, right?).

The point being that doing good can be for that sake of doing good alone, despite how other models might handle sin.

Sure, the social order is set by what the culture determines as valuable. If a rights based view, or a religious morality predominates, the order is likely to reflect those values. And those values may shift as the culture changes. — Tom Storm

Are you taking the position then that morality is determined by time and place and that slavery was good when it was accepted?

The fact that it is, at the very least, a radically antisocial act? Would you not consider it wrong if any social animal killed its fellows? — Janus

I don't attribute morality to two dogs that fight to the death or to two rams who fight to the death over an ewe.

If you do not find rape repellent, then that is about you, not about rape. If you need an argument to convict you that you ought not do such things, you are morally bankrupt. — Banno

This makes no sense.

You've been very clear that there are no objective goods and evils, but just competing points of view. So then a guy comes along celebrating the joys of rape, and you can't tell him rape is wrong, but only that he's defective because he doesn't intuitively know that rape is wrong, even though you just got through saying rape isn't wrong in an absolute way.

This is just to say that a logical consequence of relativistic ethics is that you can't tell me why I'm wrong without imposing an absolute standard on me, or else you'll forever be respecting my point of view.

The rape example is an extreme one, but there are similar real life ones. 200 years ago people were enslaved by people who were otherwise moral but didn't understand why slavery was wrong. They were wrong even though the world thought them right. Surely the abolitionists had better arguments than just to yell "you guys are morally bankrupt." They had to be relying upon some standard of righteousness that they believed transcended their personal opinion or else they'd have just been involved in a power struggle, wanting their morality to be substituted for the current system, with neither more or objectively better than the other.

It hurts to think of women I know being raped. I just extrapolate out from there. It's a feeling with a "no" at the center of it. — frank

Emotivism then? And if I don't share those emotions, then what's bad to you is good to me and there is no one correct answer? Sort of like vanilla ice cream is bad to me but good to you.

Do you think that rape is wrong because this is what you have been told by a higher authority? If you had never been told this would you still think it wrong if someone raped you? — Fooloso4

Had I lived 200 years ago. I'd have thought my race entitled to hold slaves and if I lived 80 years ago in Germany, I would have thought the Nazis monsters, unless of course I was one.

We either deny morality and just claim it's a matter of perspective, or we state what we both think: the slave holders and the Nazis were wrong. Now that we've stated what we believe, let's figure out what that belief entails, and I'd submit it demands a morality that transcends time and place.

Murder doesn't fuck up order unless people can't be convinced it's necessary.

Societies of all sorts clicked along with slavery, with its dissolution fucking up everything.

If your basis for ethical rules is pragmatic, you'll have to concede such things as slavery, subjugation of women, and stoning of the guilty and all sorts of other now considered barbaric norms were ethical within their context.

I've never thought of psychoanalysis as scientific. I think it's more of a meditative practice. It's about awareness, not facts. Clearly Freud considered it science. — T Clark

I was taught Skinner's Behaviorism was responsive to Freud's unscientific approach.

Yet that's not an answer, but only an argument there could be an answer.

So, assuming moral truths are relative to society, the times, the culture, one's idiosyncratic upbringing and experiences, tell me why the rapist ought be judged wrong despite his view it is right?

Alright, so for all here who have settled upon relativistic morality, explain the basis of your moral outrage against the rapist and why I should find your reasons compelling.

Are not some cultures insane by the standards of others? Can we demonstrate that we have access to virtues that transcend human perspectives? — Tom Storm

I suspect whatever reservation you have in condemning rape in other nations exists only in your inability to articulate a reason why your cultural values should predominate, but your conscience leaves you no doubt as to the immorality of it.