Why can't rape be considered morally neutral?

[RichardY]

why violently inflicting a preference on others is in contradiction with it being morally neutral. Can you elaborate some more?

 

"It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger." A Treatise of Human Nature, by David Hume (Lifeboat Survival 101)

 

Basically if it came to it, scratching a finger or hacking of a hand, if it meant preventing further destruction would not necessarily be in conflict with violence being morally neutral, being equitable though is probably worth baring in mind.  I remember an early post on the forum where I asked if there was no truth in the NAP(Non Agression Principle) and people basically freaked out imo.

 

I think the difference is that UPB is a methodology for testing moral rules, not a moral rule itself. The categorical imperative specifies a "should". UPB helps us winnow out "shoulds" that don't pass scrutiny.

Yes methodology rather than refinement, not a moral itself. The "should" being an umbrella statement, which I agree is winnowed out in UPB. Intuitively I feel though, that perhaps UPB misses something in Ethics. It would be interesting to see what other moral rules or maxims are out there with expressions of truth.

[farnoud]

"I don't care if I get raped" is invalid. Rape implies a preference and if that preference doesn't exist it isn't rape. If no one cares about when someone has sex with them, there is no possibility of rape. Rape implies the preference exists and UPB states it can logically exist without contradiction within a moral code, but nobody has to have that sexual preference. You're not saying rape is morally neutral, because the term implies it isn't morally neutral. You're just saying there doesn't have to be that preference and with such a group of people there would be no such thing as rape between them because that preference doesn't exist in that situation. In which case it's just sex, which is morally neutral. You're not getting the inherent preference within the word rape that is differentiating it from sex and moving it from a morally neutral act to an immoral act, by the presence of the preference.

But people can still have their individually subjective preferences, and there can be conflicts between those interests. I don't see why having a conflict of interests between the individuals has to be considered a logical inconsistency. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

What I'm trying to say is that first you have to establish why we have to evaluate the act of rape by looking into UPB (why does it have to be a moral issue?) or else you can't argue that it can't be morally neutral.

 

I gave you the argument? Where is my argument wrong? 

[farnoud]

Rape involves violently inflicting that preference on others. So it can't be morally neutral.

You can't just claim this. How do you justify it?

 

I gave you the argument? Where is my argument wrong? 

If you're happy with your argument I'm happy for you! Just ignore me.

 

"It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger." A Treatise of Human Nature, by David Hume (Lifeboat Survival 101)

 

Basically if it came to it, scratching a finger or hacking of a hand, if it meant preventing further destruction would not necessarily be in conflict with violence being morally neutral, being equitable though is probably worth baring in mind.  I remember an early post on the forum where I asked if there was no truth in the NAP(Non Agression Principle) and people basically freaked out imo.

The reason I started the conversation was with the hope that someone could convince me of the practicability of UPB (still hoping!), because I think not having anything to rely on when it comes to how humans interact with each other can make you completely passive or else you can't expect anyone to listen to you which kills my motivation. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

You can't just claim this. How do you justify it?

 

I didn't just claim it. I made an argument for it. Can you show me where it's wrong or not?

 

 

 

If you're happy with your argument I'm happy for you! Just ignore me.

 

This is a philosophy forum. Rudeness is not a valid rebuttal. Either you respond to the argument I gave you properly or I'm calling bullshit on sincerity.   

[farnoud]

I didn't just claim it. I made an argument for it. Can you show me where it's wrong or not?

 

 

This is a philosophy forum. Rudeness is not a valid rebuttal. Either you respond to the argument I gave you properly or I'm calling bullshit on sincerity.   

Just because there is a behavioral distinction between listening to jazz and rape doesn't mean either one of them has to be a moral issue. I have already attempted three times to explain where I can't follow your logic and you just repeated the same question. If we can't agree on where you haven't provided sufficient proof for your argument we can't really continue with the conversation.

[RichardY]

The reason I started the conversation was with the hope that someone could convince me of the practicability of UPB (still hoping!),

Could convince me.... You'll convince yourself or you won't. I will say though that the fact people often prefer to talk rather than seize things by force means that both parties "wills" are not in conflict. Yes a person could use force, be it shouting at another person stealing their stuff, which while it is not universally preferable behaviour, it is also a lack of integrity.

 

Unless the person willing to use force to achieve their aims, goes all in Conan style, in which case the idea of even having the debate goes out the window and the issue becomes guile and deception; clan loyalty, not truth.

 

because I think not having anything to rely on when it comes to how humans interact with each other can make you completely passive or else you can't expect anyone to listen to you which kills my motivation. 

Which is why, Stefan did a book called real-time relationships and has done many podcasts on self-knowledge. You can't expect people to listen to you anyway, even if they did they may lack the capacity to understand the meaning being conveyed. I guess you could go in Pulp Fiction style "Any of you fucking pricks move, and I'll execute every motherfucking last one of ya" but even then some people might utterly freak out, could be kind of fun, enough motivation?

[farnoud]

Which is why, Stefan did a book called real-time relationships and has done many podcasts on self-knowledge. You can't expect people to listen to you anyway, even if they did they may lack the capacity to understand the meaning being conveyed. I guess you could go in Pulp Fiction style "Any of you fucking pricks move, and I'll execute every motherfucking last one of ya" but even then some people might utterly freak out, could be kind of fun, enough motivation?

Well, what I mean is for instance if someone who believes in communism and his ultimate goal is to bring equality (equity of outcome) to the maximum number of people possible even at the price of mass starvation, I can't try to change his mind by relying on logical means. If some people prefer communism because of propaganda I could still try to change their mind by exposing the propaganda, but now I can't just argue communism or socialism are immoral like the way Stefan does in his podcasts which would be much easier because trying to expose the propaganda can really become challenging.

[RichardY]

Well, what I mean is for instance if someone who believes in communism and his ultimate goal is to bring equality (equity of outcome) to the maximum number of people possible even at the price of mass starvation, 

Equality and Equity, while sounding similar are very different. Equity is concerned with fairness and justice, equality is merely equalising. 

 

Communism is the elimination of property as a concept. When you have "public" property 2 people can't use it at the same time. You could have Public or National Parks, but this would be no different from having wilderness. Equally to hold "Private" property as sacred above all to the owner is to eliminate morality. Merely the word "Property" is sufficient.

 

 I can't try to change his mind by relying on logical means. If some people prefer communism because of propaganda I could still try to change their mind by exposing the propaganda, but now I can't just argue communism or socialism are immoral like the way Stefan does in his podcasts which would be much easier because trying to expose the propaganda can really become challenging.

I haven't heard Stefan argue communism as immoral, if its not wrong its not even right. Which is often why its not just Communism, but Marxism, Stalinism, Chavisma etc. The effects of "getting to communism" through various socialist methods often involve violence and rarely Coops, Kibbutzes or communes. It is possible to resolve conflicts through a communist system, but only through compromise, as soon as there is no compromise there is violence or surrender.

 

You can't argue communism is immoral, what you could do on an individual level is show them where their assumptions are wrong and how UPB is consistent or their behaviour is inconsistent. UPB imo is not just about ethics it is about integrity and while there are some sections that come to mind that stick out like sore thumb imo. The "protesters" Anarcho-Communists, Feminists etc.. lack integrity, which is why they attack Donald Trump, despite Clinton being soaked in blood.

 

Argue with them. A part of me says let them slit each others throats when they run out of easy targets, victims if you have a soul. Though I guess this is where psychology comes in.

[meetjoeblack]

In part two of the book (Application) when Stefan is testing the moral value of rape against the 7 different categories, he dismisses the notion that rape can be considered morally neutral by stating that it is a preference enforced upon someone; however, to my knowledge he never stablished why an action that is enforced upon someone can't be morally neutral. I find this to be a breach in the practicability of UPB. Can anyone explain why a preference enforced upon another human being can't be morally neutral?

 

If there is the use of force, how can this be neutral? Rape cannot be neutral because there is the use of force the same way unleashing the dogs of the state to extract male resources is far from moral.

[farnoud]

If there is the use of force, how can this be neutral? Rape cannot be neutral because there is the use of force the same way unleashing the dogs of the state to extract male resources is far from moral.

Well, because we're trying to redefine what morality is, and now that we are replacing the traditional/mystical forms of morality with UPB, it becomes essential that we first establish why using force is a matter of "morality", or better to say, UPB.

[meetjoeblack]

Well, because we're trying to redefine what morality is, and now that we are replacing the traditional/mystical forms of morality with UPB, it becomes essential that we first establish why using force is a matter of "morality", or better to say, UPB.

 

The use of force is never moral though, neither is manipulation, having a monopoly on sex lets say in a marriage, and access in resources is someone were to stake their claim elsewhere. Its basically a social experiment. Look at the system we are subscribed to be it willingly or against our will.

[RichardY]

Marriage; Not a social experiment. A form of contract, a type of communism. Chains that bind, broken by violence or God...

 

"When you have to shoot...Shoot! Don't talk" Tuco(The Ugly), The Good, Bad and The Ugly.

[Tyler H]

Well, because we're trying to redefine what morality is, and now that we are replacing the traditional/mystical forms of morality with UPB, it becomes essential that we first establish why using force is a matter of "morality", or better to say, UPB.

The concept of morality is concerned with what people should or shouldn't do. It is inherent in the definition of rape that the act being imposed upon the victim is unwanted and therefore the victim is saying, verbally or not, "you should not have sex with me against my will."  It is impossible to be morally neutral because the act of rape is not the act of rape without the intrinsic declaration of a moral claim by the victim.  This same argument can be applied to the use of force in all areas because if you use force against someone you are saying with your actions "you should/shouldn't do x", and if you defend yourself with force you are saying with your actions "you should't do x."  Therefore the protested use of force will always carry a moral component.  

 

Thoughts?

[RichardY]

The concept of morality is concerned with what people should or shouldn't do.

Must not do, or not an ethical matter. Unless someone is an Objectivist and takes man's life as the standard of value, in which case they are incorrect.

 

It is inherent in the definition of rape that the act being imposed upon the victim is unwanted and therefore the victim is saying, verbally or not, "you should not have sex with me against my will."  It is impossible to be morally neutral because the act of rape is not the act of rape without the intrinsic declaration of a moral claim by the victim.  

I agree, but get rid of the should.

 

This same argument can be applied to the use of force in all areas because if you use force against someone you are saying with your actions "you should/shouldn't do x", and if you defend yourself with force you are saying with your actions "you should't do x."  Therefore the protested use of force will always carry a moral component.  

Someone climbs onto the ledge of a very tall building, you grab them and they protest. 

[Tyler H]

Someone climbs onto the ledge of a very tall building, you grab them and they protest.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you denying there is a moral component to that event?

[farnoud]

The concept of morality is concerned with what people should or shouldn't do. It is inherent in the definition of rape that the act being imposed upon the victim is unwanted and therefore the victim is saying, verbally or not, "you should not have sex with me against my will."  It is impossible to be morally neutral because the act of rape is not the act of rape without the intrinsic declaration of a moral claim by the victim.  This same argument can be applied to the use of force in all areas because if you use force against someone you are saying with your actions "you should/shouldn't do x", and if you defend yourself with force you are saying with your actions "you should't do x."  Therefore the protested use of force will always carry a moral component.  

 

Thoughts?

This use of the concept of morality is still within the traditional (old, or whatever you want to call it!) form. Don't get me wrong! I'm not saying morality is a meaningless word. The word carries an understandable concept, but I think we should be careful and not use the two terms, 'morality' and 'UPB' interchangeably. We need to make a distinction between 'subjective' and 'objective' preferences. I understand that in any case of the use of force there is a conflict of interest, but in order to be able to apply UPB to it, we need to establish why considering those preferences to be subjective is logically inconsistent.

[RichardY]

"Someone climbs onto the ledge of a very tall building, you grab them and they protest." 

 

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you denying there is a moral component to that event?

No, but if there is a moral component would the action of grabbing them be immoral? As Ethics from what I understand is refraining from doing immoral actions. Also aesthetic and Integrity questions come to mind, which maybe equally or more important than the non-initiation of force. More of a thought experiment.

 

Depending on the circumstances which could be any of the following:

The someone is a Child or an Adult.

Possibility to call emergency services

The conditions are windy with possible risk to yourself, others down below, the person on the ledge.

The person is a suicide jumper or high on drugs.

Unknown Factors, certainty.

[Tyler H]

The word carries an understandable concept, but I think we should be careful and not use the two terms, 'morality' and 'UPB' interchangeably.

It is my understanding that UPB is claiming that very interchangeability. Throughout history philosophers try to further define morality; they say morality is deontology or consequentialism or liberalism, et cetera. UPB, like all the others, is an attempt to define ethics - with the additional goal in mind of maintaining an objective framework so that ethics cannot be manipulated to suit the subjective preference of the moralizer.

 

We need to make a distinction between 'subjective' and 'objective' preferences.

I think that all preferences are subjective by definition. Whether or not the woman wants to have sex is her subjective preference, however once she has made her choice the fact that she does not want to have sex, yet is forced to do so, is objective. The objective component of UPB is not in the individual preferences of each actor, but in the fact that those preferences and behaviors are expressed, and in the methodology for determining if those preferences and behaviors can be universalized.

 

 

I understand that in any case of the use of force there is a conflict of interest, but in order to be able to apply UPB to it, we need to establish why considering those preferences to be subjective is logically inconsistent.

So UPB is not trying to determine the subjectivity of a preference, rather the universal applicability of a behavior that has a preferential component to it.

[farnoud]

It is my understanding that UPB is claiming that very interchangeability. Throughout history philosophers try to further define morality; they say morality is deontology or consequentialism or liberalism, et cetera. UPB, like all the others, is an attempt to define ethics - with the additional goal in mind of maintaining an objective framework so that ethics cannot be manipulated to suit the subjective preference of the moralizer.

I agree with what you're saying. This is why I started this thread by asking how can we establish actions regarding the use of force can't be morally neutral.

 

I think that all preferences are subjective by definition. Whether or not the woman wants to have sex is her subjective preference, however once she has made her choice the fact that she does not want to have sex, yet is forced to do so, is objective. The objective component of UPB is not in the individual preferences of each actor, but in the fact that those preferences and behaviors are expressed, and in the methodology for determining if those preferences and behaviors can be universalized.

What I mean by objective and subjective are universal and the opposite of it. Even Stefan referred to universal as objective in his book if I'm not mistaken. So, basically, I'm arguing in order to universalize these type of behaviors, we need to demonstrate why not universalizing them is logically inconsistent. Keep in mind I, don't see a problem with people deciding to universalize it because I don't see any logical inconsistency in it; however, if not universalizing it also can be logically consistent, how the society functions regarding these issues becomes subjected to the view of the majority or the strongest group of the people within that society.

 

So UPB is not trying to determine the subjectivity of a preference, rather the universal applicability of a behavior that has a preferential component to it.

I agree

[Tyler H]

What I mean by objective and subjective are universal and the opposite of it. Even Stefan referred to universal as objective in his book if I'm not mistaken. So, basically, I'm arguing in order to universalize these type of behaviors, we need to demonstrate why not universalizing them is logically inconsistent.

I think the reason a moral rule has to be universal is because if it isn't then there is no reason someone can't make the inverse rule to cancel it out.  This is what makes arbitrary application (as opposed to universalization) logically inconsistent and as you alluded quickly devolves into morality being defined by whoever has the power to impose their will and can scarcely then be called objective or moral.  

 

I think these are good questions you raise and it is certainly important for us to be able to articulate the answers if we wish to convince people of these ethical propositions, the ones that will listen to reason anyways.