Arab guilty of rape after consensual sex with Jew

[Datepalm]

Threadjack much?

FWIW, I'm with ljkeane. Not every decision is a "moral" decision.

Of course not, but the decision for which law to vote is.

[Lord Mord]

ljkeane,

There's several different types, Galactus already mentioned deontology which I believe is rule based ethics. I never particularly liked philosophy so I'm sure that there's lots more but I don't really remember specifics.

I for one am fairly sure I don't think net utility is the sole basis for morality. For example although I value my life more than anyone else's if I had commited a crime that would result in me being executed I'd still consider murdering an innocent witness to be morally wrong.

Well, I admit that for the description that I'm using of morality to work, it presupposes a disconnect on the part of the individual between what he actually values morally versus what he considers himself to value morally.

Still, I don't think this is so very problematic. People don't like to think of themselves as immoral or amoral, so intellectually they are able to return the response that a behavior is "wrong," while their behavior indicates with some force that emotionally, or at any rate internally they are convinced they are "right", or at least not so very wrong that they cannot act anyway.

Once that kind of disconnect is assumed, everything a person says about what she values is suspect. As such, just because you say you value your life more than anyone else's, even if you believed it, that doesn't make it so. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and facing a capital charge, you nevertheless stay your hand at murdering another person whose death will almost certainly stay your own. Clearly, your assertion about your values is quite problematic at best.

I mean, suppose I said that my whole life is about the pursuit of more money, that being rich is more important to me than anything else in the whole world, and then I give away all my worldly possessions to live in an ashram. Are you saying you would not be more inclined to suspect I'd been lying or in some manner confused when I made my statement, than you would be to suppose that my values system is simply very complex?

[ljkeane]

Once that kind of disconnect is assumed, everything a person says about what she values is suspect. As such, just because you say you value your life more than anyone else's, even if you believed it, that doesn't make it so. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and facing a capital charge, you nevertheless stay your hand at murdering another person. Clearly, your assertion about your values is quite problematic at best.

I didn't say that I wouldn't do it, I just said that I'd consider it morally wrong.

[Mme Erzulie]

I'm with Gal & al. when it comes to laws being moral statements.

Can someone who opposes this view give an example about what a law could be based on that's not to do with morality?

[Datepalm]

I didn't say that I wouldn't do it, I just said that I'd consider it morally wrong.

Why would you vote differently then? Its like the person who absoloutely believes that everyone should be allowed to freely practice their religeon, but in practice votes to ban minarets in their town. When push comes to shove, peoples actualy decisions reflect what they really believe to be moral and what they don't. (In the case of minarets, it might mostly be their own comfort.)

[Lord Mord]

ljkeane,

I didn't say that I wouldn't do it, I just said that I'd consider it morally wrong.

When you say you'd consider it "wrong," do you mean you'd consider it Absolutely Wrong, as in Must Not Ever Be Done? If you really did so consider it, then by definition you would be incapable of doing it.

Therefore, if you do kill the person, then, sure, you may possibly consider such a murder to be wrong-ish, which is to say "not right, and justly suffering from stigma of badness," but also you must clearly consider it less wrong than whatever would have happened had you not committed this murder.

[ljkeane]

Why would you vote differently then?

Because I might value my personal utility above morality, not being a utilitarian I don't necessarily think that's a moral decision.

[Datepalm]

Because I might value my personal utility above morality, not being a utilitarian I don't necessarily think that's a moral decision.

thats just semantics. Or possibly hypocricy. You do what you think needs to be done - when you decide if you base "what needs to be done" on your own survival or the general wellbeing of society or whats written in the bible, you make a moral choice.

[Lugez]

I'm not going to read through all 17 pages, but here's what I think..

Deception should not be considered rape. Men all over the world have their own tactics for picking up women. Some tactics are good and healthy, some tactics involve loads of lying and deception.

Take this guy for instance. So he lied and said he was Jew so he could get laid. Is it really the government's job to prevent men from using these tactics so women don't sleep with them?

Of course, we should take these situations on a case-by-case basis. I'm willing to provide some exceptions (such as certain cases of gross deception). But with this case, the woman apparently had sex with him almost right after meeting him. The guy lied, she believed him, and he got laid. She didn't even look into his whole charade and she bought it. If anything, she's at fault just as much as the man.

[Lord Mord]

Lugez,

Of course, we should take these situations on a case-by-case basis. I'm willing to provide some exceptions (such as certain cases of gross deception).

I know this is just a parenthetical, a sort of throwaway point, but you've excited my curiosity: what kind of deception would qualify as sufficiently "gross" to warrant a charge of rape, where there is no other basis for that charge?

[ljkeane]

thats just semantics. Or possibly hypocricy. You do what you think needs to be done - when you decide if you base "what needs to be done" on your own survival or the general wellbeing of society or whats written in the bible, you make a moral choice.

Again only if you subscribe to utilitarianism and thus every choice is a 'moral choice'. Personally I think people compromise on their moral codes all the time, it doesn't mean that it's not their moral code.

[Datepalm]

Again only if you subscribe to utilitarianism and thus every choice is a 'moral choice'. Personally I think people compromise on their moral codes all the time, it doesn't mean that it's not their moral code.

Then what is it, these things that you actually do to others, somehow divorced from the things you think you should do?

[ljkeane]

Then what is it, these things that you actually do to others, somehow divorced from the things you think you should do?

Choosing to prioritize my personal utility over morality, like I said.

[Datepalm]

Choosing to prioritize my personal utility over morality, like I said.

^

|

A set of priorities that are a choice based on morals.

[ljkeane]

^

|

A set of priorities that are a choice based on morals.

Only if you think that a calculation of net utlity is how to determine what is moral.

[Lord Mord]

ljkeane,

Choosing to prioritize my personal utility over morality, like I said.

Why would you choose to prioritize yourself, unless you thought that you should? Is it turtles all the way down?

[Datepalm]

Only if you think that a calculation of net utlity is how to determine what is moral.

No, I think what is moral is based on what promotes the greatest positive freedoms on the aggregate largest amount of people. You apparently think its whats best for you, Fred Phelps thinks its whats written in the bible, whatever. ALL OF US use a calculation of net utility TO GET THERE.

[ljkeane]

Why would you choose to prioritize yourself, unless you thought that you should? Is it turtles all the way down?

Because I want to? Basically your argument is that every decision everyone makes must be moral because they made that decision? That seems somewhat circular.

No, I think what is moral is based on what promotes the greatest positive freedoms on the aggregate largest amount of people. You apparently think its whats best for you, Fred Phelps thinks its whats written in the bible, whatever. ALL OF US use a calculation of net utility TO GET THERE.

No I don't, I think it's an immoral decision. That's the point, I don't think a calculation of net utility determines what is moral. Like I've been saying.

[Datepalm]

No I don't, I think it's an immoral decision. That's the point, I don't think a calculation of net utility determines what is moral. Like I've been saying.

So by your own measure you would not typically act in a way you consider moral? Then what is the point?

[ljkeane]

So by your own measure you would not typically act in a way you consider moral? Then what is the point?

Well I haven't murdered anyone so far which was the example I used. Why does there have to be a point? It's what I consider to be moral, sometimes people act in an immoral fashion.