are anarchists the only legitimate opponents of rape?

[SimonF]

If rape is simply 1 example of a power-over relationship, and statism another, then are we anarchists the only critics of rape who are not hypocrits?

[RestoringGuy]

 

If rape is simply 1 example of a power-over relationship, and statism another, then are we anarchists the only critics of rape who are not hypocrits?

 

That seems basically correct.  Although a particular power-over relationship is occasionally required (such as self-defense, or some kind of momentary protection of an unsuspecting person in clear danger), and one would not find cases where rape is somehow required.

[Existing Alternatives]

 I think that type of thinking is probably inconsistent, but not particularly hypocritical (unless they actually support or perpetrate rape). You could also look at it as a special case of violence. For example, I hate mosquitoes, but it would not be hypocritical or even inconsistent if I am ok with the rest of insects. I am sure most people who oppose rape not only look at it as a special case of violence, but also not consider it to be in the same class as state. Provided they actually make the state-violence connection.

[RestoringGuy]

 

 I think that type of thinking is probably inconsistent, but not particularly hypocritical (unless they actually support or perpetrate rape). You could also look at it as a special case of violence. For example, I hate mosquitoes, but it would not be hypocritical or even inconsistent if I am ok with the rest of insects. I am sure most people who oppose rape not only look at it as a special case of violence, but also not consider it to be in the same class as state. Provided they actually make the state-violence connection.

 

That would seem to move things from moral absolutes to matters of personal ideology.  For example, a person who says rape of one racial group should be opposed while purposely ignoring others would (on the surface) seem to be a consistent person from a purely philosophical standpoint so long as they admit to having racial bias.  And at that point, their inconsistency is now shown indirectly because that bias can always be teleported to almost any other topic of morality, such as whether it is wrong to kill people or lie to people and use fallacies (so long as it meets their racial criteria they have chosen).  However, if such a person reserves a moral right to lie to people and use fallacies, I would think the legitimacy of their arguments now seems greatly in question.  It seems like automatic paradox.  I just don't see how philosophical legitimacy can work half way without running into the problem of an automatic hypocrisy.

[batou]

 

If rape is simply 1 example of a power-over relationship, and statism another, then are we anarchists the only critics of rape who are not hypocrits?

 

 

No, your logic is faulty. 

 

It goes something like this 

rape is "power-over relationship", therefore every "power-over relationship" is rape. 

 

It's like saying:

A door opens, therefore everything that opens is a door.

But a window also opens.

You can be a statist and be against rape, simply because not every act of coercion is rape.

[SimonF]

 

It goes something like this 

rape is "power-over relationship", therefore every "power-over relationship" is rape.  

It's like saying:

A door opens, therefore everything that opens is a door.

But a window also opens.

You can be a statist and be against rape, simply because not every act of coercion is rape.

 

but it's not the sex act that makes rape wrong, people even pay for rough and even rapy sex, it's the lack of consent that makes rape wrong

I suppose though the very direct and person nature of rape is what makes it so thoroughly obnoxious

[batou]

 

but it's not the sex act that makes rape wrong, people even pay for rough and even rapy sex, it's the lack of consent that makes rape wrong

 

In that case why bring out rape in the first place?

If you define coercion (lack of consent) as immoral, then anarchists might be the most consistent (not hypocritical) I might agree, but there is no reason to showcase rape. 

From my point of you bringing out rape is problematic, because blaming people for approving rape is used as shaming language.

An example of this would be saying to a statist, that because he approves of coercion in some cases, that he automatically approves of rape.

[NotDarkYet]

Simon,

 

Yes.  Anarchists are the people who have a rational position on the question of property.

 

All other philosophies would refer to "utility".  And at SOME point utilitarily speaking - - a mans pleasure from raping would be greater than the womans pain.  Thus, they'd have to defend it.

 

 

 

[batou]

 

All other philosophies would refer to "utility".  And at SOME point utilitarily speaking - - a mans pleasure from raping would be greater than the womans pain.  Thus, they'd have to defend it.

 

Which I bet are similar to something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

 

At some point you are going to have to defend murder.

[SimonF]

 

 

but it's not the sex act that makes rape wrong, people even pay for rough and even rapy sex, it's the lack of consent that makes rape wrong

 

In that case why bring out rape in the first place?

If you define coercion (lack of consent) as immoral, then anarchists might be the most consistent (not hypocritical) I might agree, but there is no reason to showcase rape. 

 

I mention rape because of the large amount of publicity it gets, promoted by feminists many of whom are statists.

 

From my point of you bringing out rape is problematic, because blaming people for approving rape is used as shaming language.

An example of this would be saying to a statist, that because he approves of coercion in some cases, that he automatically approves of rape.

 

One either approves of using coercion or not, yes? One cannot simultaneously hold to a principle and it's opposite without being a hypocrit.

The state backs it's "laws" ultimately by guns and the death, which is a worse moral offence than rape IMO.

[batou]

One either approves of using coercion or not, yes? One cannot simultaneously hold to a principle and it's opposite without being a hypocrit.

That's true, but I don't think feminists subscribe to this principle.

 

[RestoringGuy]

That is correct.  I have had such women tell me directly that a man raped in prison is a less significant event.  When I probed and probed why, the reason was "men do not have feelings".  Exact words.  One of these same women circumcised her son.  Same reason.

[nickhk]

 

 

If rape is simply 1 example of a power-over relationship, and statism another, then are we anarchists the only critics of rape who are not hypocrits?

 

 

No, your logic is faulty. 

 

It goes something like this 

rape is "power-over relationship", therefore every "power-over relationship" is rape. 

 

It's like saying:

A door opens, therefore everything that opens is a door.

But a window also opens.

You can be a statist and be against rape, simply because not every act of coercion is rape.

 

Your logic may actually be faulty.

Rape would be one type of "power-over relationship"

Statism another type of "power-over relationship"

Murder as well.

Suggesting that all "power-over relationships" are therefore rape is fallacious.  It's Affirming the Consequent.

[batou]

 

Your logic may actually be faulty.

Rape would be one type of "power-over relationship"

Statism another type of "power-over relationship"

Murder as well.

Suggesting that all "power-over relationships" are therefore rape is fallacious.  It's Affirming the Consequent.

 

 

This is what I was arguing.

 

[nickhk]

Ok, but that fallacy doesn't appear to be present in SimonF's argument, as I understand it.

Simply, if one does not reject all "power-over relationships," then their position on force (be it rape, murder, theft) is inconsistent, therefore they're a hypocrite. 

By advocating for agents of the state to murder and steal for you, while condeming rape as abhorent, except when done in state cages, is kinda-maybe-just-a-little-bit hypocritical.

Maybe that's been laid out in the thread several times over at this point.

It's a nifty way to analyze an ideology by checking for consistency of first principles.  Very UPB.

[batou]

Simply, if one does not reject all "power-over relationships," then their position on force (be it rape, murder, theft) is inconsistent, therefore they're a hypocrite. 

Yes, but as said before, only if they subscribe to the principle. If they believe that coercion is wrong in every instance and are still statists (state uses coercion), then they are hypocrites.

But if they don't hold this principle, but hold for example another one: that coercion wrong in some instances, but right in other, then you can't call them hypocrites.

[RestoringGuy]

 

Your logic may actually be faulty.

Rape would be one type of "power-over relationship"

Statism another type of "power-over relationship"

Murder as well.

Suggesting that all "power-over relationships" are therefore rape is fallacious.  It's Affirming the Consequent.

 

That is a total mischaracterization of the argument.  Of course "P(x) & P(y) -> x=y" is not a tautology. 

What is being morally argued is "P(x) -> W(x)" (power-over implies wrong of event x).  You can't prove rape is wrong without this axiom. because physical action alone is not what is said to be wrong, but a combination of the physical action with absence of consent inside the mind.  We give intercourse two different words based on consent alone, and just classifying words in themselves (lovemaking is right and rape is wrong) is not a valid argument.  You have to point to a moral reference point (ie consent/power) in order to prove anything.  Once that is done, it is hypocrisy to deny it when x is substituted with a different act.

 

[Existing Alternatives]

 

That would seem to move things from moral absolutes to matters of personal ideology.  For example, a person who says rape of one racial group should be opposed while purposely ignoring others would (on the surface) seem to be a consistent person from a purely philosophical standpoint so long as they admit to having racial bias.  And at that point, their inconsistency is now shown indirectly because that bias can always be teleported to almost any other topic of morality, such as whether it is wrong to kill people or lie to people and use fallacies (so long as it meets their racial criteria they have chosen).  However, if such a person reserves a moral right to lie to people and use fallacies, I would think the legitimacy of their arguments now seems greatly in question.  It seems like automatic paradox.  I just don't see how philosophical legitimacy can work half way without running into the problem of an automatic hypocrisy.

 

I don't think this is particularly hypocritical. Hypocrisy is generally refers to an active promotion of an idea, while living out something completely opposite. For example, standing on a street corner with the poster that claims rape being bad and after going into a basement and through the whole Pulp Fiction sequence will be quite hypocritical. Consistency though is something bit different. 

Your example of overlaying rape with racism could actually be consistent for someone who believes in racial inequality. This will create an additional burden of proof (whether racial inequality is morally justifiable). The point is that a subset inherits all qualities of superset, superset does not.

I thought my mosquitoes example was very clever: let me try and expand it. If you hate all insects - you hate mosquitoes, if you hate mosquitoes - you may or may not hate all insects. Same applies to hypocrisy: hypocrisy is inconsistent – inconsistency is not necessarily hypocritical.

Let's go back to rape. Rape is a universally immoral act. Rape is part of the "power-over" superset. Are all "over power" actions universally immoral? (I don't know). Further, outside of this small community, state is not generally considered a "power-over" entity.  Therefore, in order for us to claim "their" inconsistency, at least two conditions have to be met:  "they" have to accept that (1) state is a "power-over" entity and (2) all "power-over" entities are universally immoral. As of right now, we have neither.

[RestoringGuy]

 

I thought my mosquitoes example was very clever: let me try and expand it. If you hate all insects - you hate mosquitoes, if you hate mosquitoes - you may or may not hate all insects. Same applies to hypocrisy: hypocrisy is inconsistent – inconsistency is not necessarily hypocritical.

Let's go back to rape. Rape is a universally immoral act. Rape is part of the "power-over" superset. Are all "over power" actions universally immoral? (I don't know). Further, outside of this small community, state is not generally considered a "power-over" entity.  Therefore, in order for us to claim "their" inconsistency, at least two conditions have to be met:  "they" have to accept that (1) state is a "power-over" entity and (2) all "power-over" entities are universally immoral. As of right now, we have neither.

 

Yes your thought makes sense, and I agree it is not hypocritical to simply say it as a matter of "promotion".  But I interpret a "legitmate opponent" of rape to be, not one who says "rape is wrong" as a matter of assertion,  but one who says "rape is wrong and I can prove it".  It is the opposition that is legitimized, not the person who is opposing.  When we discuss mosquitos, we don't discuss the legitimacy of hating them, just the matter of whether you do.  Instead if you say you're a "legitimate opponent of mosquitos", then I believe you've raised the bar and have to explain why they are objectively bad.

That is true about the subset argument.  One cannot apply to the general power-over set directly.  What I mean is the "provability".  The contradiction is when a person who claims rape is wrong and puts forth a general principle that proves it wrong (rape is wrong because it is power-over which is wrong), then denies that principle (state is power-over which is excusable).  It is their act of proof that is hypocritical, not their plain old assertions that are hypocritical.  Without proof, a claim of legitimacy seems to lose traction.  You may question whether they actually "need" the power-over argument to stay legitimate.  Sure they could say any intercourse proves an act wrong (consent being unconsidered), but such a strange argument is not very common.  The power argument has to be leveraged.

 

[Existing Alternatives]

 

The contradiction is when a person who claims rape is wrong and puts forth a general principle that proves it wrong (rape is wrong because it is power-over which is wrong), then denies that principle (state is power-over which is excusable). 

I think the problem is that we failed to convince them that state is the “power over” relationship.  I found this to be the main strength of Stef’s system both for my personal conversion and the conversations I’m having with my friends – realizing that state = violence.

[Freedom2013]

I believe the answer to the original question is no but lets pose another question:

Could an anarchist reasonably suggest that, no rape victim is a legitimate opponent of rape unless they are an anarchist?

[NotDarkYet]

 

 

Could an anarchist reasonably suggest that, no rape victim is a legitimate opponent of rape unless they are an anarchist?

 

This is a deep question.

Inho, a person could FEEL they are opposed to rape without being an anarchist.  But that person would be being inconsistent.   The state they support violates bodies at will.

It would be like a doctor in 1700 being "against disease"  but who does not wash his hands.  He FEELS he is against disease, but he doesn't know that he's a (small) part of the cause of disease.

[RestoringGuy]

My opinion is that legitimacy requires consistency.  We would not accept a certain litmus paper as "legitimate"  if a person believes in it but it detects acid no better than chance.  Maybe the answer to this topic should be yes, simply because anarchists are the only legitimate opponents of anything.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Assuming, as I do, that rape is the initiation of force, a legitimate opponent of rape would oppose the initiation of force, in a consistent manner: by word, and deed. The question of who, consistently, opposes the initiation of force might not be easily answered. There may be some, in their own minds, who completely oppose the use of force, but due to outside forces influencing their existence, do not feel the freedom to act on their convictions. I would presume to state that, removing the incentives to "tow the line", would reveal an abundance of people opposed to force. I would also add that people who advocate the use of force, when confronted with superior force, suddenly aren't so attached to their initial idea. How many people would be raped, if the potential victim carried a firearm, and knew how to use it? I admit this to be a practical, rather than philosophical, solution. Doesn't evidence trump idea?

Ultimately, I think it comes down to the question: is the initiation of force a valid activity. Those who advocate for it will always find a justification, no matter what the circumstance. Those opposed should aspire to a complete consistency, and oppose all representations of force.