Is Rape worse than murder?

[Jolly_Penguin]

I expected conservatives to see more shame in it and to place a higher value on "purity" and chasteness, and to morr likely see a violation of this in borderline cases. But I may be way out on this, as I dont really have any experience with rape.

 

[Bronzeage]

I expected conservatives to see more shame in it and to place a higher value on "purity" and chasteness, and to morr likely see a violation of this in borderline cases. But I may be way out on this, as I dont really have any experience with rape.

You are confused about how "purity and chasteness" translate from one culture to another. Religious conservatives in the US and a lot of other western nations put a high value on virginity and equivocate it to purity and chastity. If a young woman has sex against her will, it is no reflection on her personal values. It gets a little tricky here, because to maintain this charade, the young woman often has to pretend to be more chaste than she actually is.

In cultures where women are considered to be part of the family wealth, and as such are expected to increase the family fortune, virginity is a very different matter. A woman produces new family members, who then share in the family wealth. If a woman has sex outside of an approved marriage and becomes pregnant, she in effect is giving a share of the fortune to an outsider. In this social system, rape is a crime against property, not an assault. The unmarried raped victim has lost most, if not all of her property value to her family.

 

[WAB]

Killing can very often be justified.

Rape can NEVER be justified.



Anyone, in certain circumstances, can become a murderer.

Only a weak, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing asshole can become a rapist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Killing can very often be justified.

Rape can NEVER be justified.

I disagree. Many years ago I came up with a scenario, admittedly a pretty wild case:

You're an undercover officer that has infiltrated some group of baddies. A part of the group went and did some dastardly deed--and took a hostage in their escape. She's seen their faces, they're going to kill her. You've called in the cavalry but they're not going to get there in time to save her. If you can delay her execution you can save her--but you need a good reason to do so.

 

[RavenSky]

Killing can very often be justified.

Rape can NEVER be justified.

I disagree. Many years ago I came up with a scenario, admittedly a pretty wild case:

You're an undercover officer that has infiltrated some group of baddies. A part of the group went and did some dastardly deed--and took a hostage in their escape. She's seen their faces, they're going to kill her. You've called in the cavalry but they're not going to get there in time to save her. If you can delay her execution you can save her--but you need a good reason to do so.

Still not justified. Come up with some other delay tactic

 

[bilby]

Killing can very often be justified.

Rape can NEVER be justified.

I disagree. Many years ago I came up with a scenario, admittedly a pretty wild case:

You're an undercover officer that has infiltrated some group of baddies. A part of the group went and did some dastardly deed--and took a hostage in their escape. She's seen their faces, they're going to kill her. You've called in the cavalry but they're not going to get there in time to save her. If you can delay her execution you can save her--but you need a good reason to do so.

Fantasies, no matter how entertaining (or creepy) they might be, are NOT evidence for anything.

You should probably try to remember this, it is very important.

 

[The AntiChris]

Killing can very often be justified.

Rape can NEVER be justified.

The OP asks us to consider murder. Murder is, by definition, unjustified killing.

Lack of justification isn't a differentiating factor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree. Many years ago I came up with a scenario, admittedly a pretty wild case:

You're an undercover officer that has infiltrated some group of baddies. A part of the group went and did some dastardly deed--and took a hostage in their escape. She's seen their faces, they're going to kill her. You've called in the cavalry but they're not going to get there in time to save her. If you can delay her execution you can save her--but you need a good reason to do so.

Fantasies, no matter how entertaining (or creepy) they might be, are NOT evidence for anything.

You should probably try to remember this, it is very important.

Fantasy? The original situation was someone had asserted that there were actions that were categorically wrong, no justification possible. I came up with this one to rebut a particular assertion in that thread.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, and what if a super villain is going to drop a nuclear bomb on the city unless you rape a woman? Are you just going to let everyone die?

Come on, people! There are legitimate scenarios where rape is justified.

 

[Bronzeage]

Killing can very often be justified.

Rape can NEVER be justified.

I disagree. Many years ago I came up with a scenario, admittedly a pretty wild case:

You're an undercover officer that has infiltrated some group of baddies. A part of the group went and did some dastardly deed--and took a hostage in their escape. She's seen their faces, they're going to kill her. You've called in the cavalry but they're not going to get there in time to save her. If you can delay her execution you can save her--but you need a good reason to do so.

Dear Penthouse,

I never thought this would happen to me, but...

 

[thebeave]

Ya, and what if a super villain is going to drop a nuclear bomb on the city unless you rape a woman? Are you just going to let everyone die?

Come on, people! There are legitimate scenarios where rape is justified.

Actually, you don't have to go that far. The poor saps in the links below would have been better off had they gone ahead and raped the drunk woman, rather than suffer the consequences for not raping.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/woman-denied-sex-stabs-man-687432

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/denied-sex-woman-attacks-687543

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/attack-over-denied-sex-675432

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/woman-seeking-ass-986532

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/sex-denial-battery-964512

 

[Bomb#20]

Fantasies, no matter how entertaining (or creepy) they might be, are NOT evidence for anything.

You should probably try to remember this, it is very important.

Suppose you've been drafted into an ethnic-Serbian Bosnian militia. Your unit has been tasked with a spot of ethnic cleansing. You invade a village and take prisoners. Your sergeant orders you to rape one of them; the general wants all the Croatian women raped so they'll have Serb babies. You try to get out of it -- you tell your sergeant the priest says sex outside of marriage is a sin -- so he shrugs and shoots her. It seems to me the next time he orders you to rape a woman you should probably go ahead and do it. (Don't bother shooting the sergeant -- he could outdraw you in his sleep.)

Does it still count as a fantasy that's not evidence for anything if something like it has probably actually happened?

 

[bilby]

Fantasies, no matter how entertaining (or creepy) they might be, are NOT evidence for anything.

You should probably try to remember this, it is very important.

Suppose you've been drafted into an ethnic-Serbian Bosnian militia. Your unit has been tasked with a spot of ethnic cleansing. You invade a village and take prisoners. Your sergeant orders you to rape one of them; the general wants all the Croatian women raped so they'll have Serb babies. You try to get out of it -- you tell your sergeant the priest says sex outside of marriage is a sin -- so he shrugs and shoots her. It seems to me the next time he orders you to rape a woman you should probably go ahead and do it. (Don't bother shooting the sergeant -- he could outdraw you in his sleep.)

Does it still count as a fantasy that's not evidence for anything if something like it has probably actually happened?

Yes.

In order to count as evidence for anything, it has to have actually happened.

'Probably actually' is just stupid.

Oddly enough, the only thing that counts as evidence is, well, evidence.

An IOU for some evidence, probably, maybe, perhaps - nope, that's still not evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fantasies, no matter how entertaining (or creepy) they might be, are NOT evidence for anything.

You should probably try to remember this, it is very important.

Suppose you've been drafted into an ethnic-Serbian Bosnian militia. Your unit has been tasked with a spot of ethnic cleansing. You invade a village and take prisoners. Your sergeant orders you to rape one of them; the general wants all the Croatian women raped so they'll have Serb babies. You try to get out of it -- you tell your sergeant the priest says sex outside of marriage is a sin -- so he shrugs and shoots her. It seems to me the next time he orders you to rape a woman you should probably go ahead and do it. (Don't bother shooting the sergeant -- he could outdraw you in his sleep.)

Does it still count as a fantasy that's not evidence for anything if something like it has probably actually happened?

Good point, although I came up with the scenario before this atrocity came to light.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

According to our judicial system, murder is worse than rape. Ultimately, it murder is worse, but we are talking several stab wounds compared to a couple bullet wounds here.

Suppose you've been drafted into an ethnic-Serbian Bosnian militia. Your unit has been tasked with a spot of ethnic cleansing. You invade a village and take prisoners. Your sergeant orders you to rape one of them; the general wants all the Croatian women raped so they'll have Serb babies. You try to get out of it -- you tell your sergeant the priest says sex outside of marriage is a sin -- so he shrugs and shoots her. It seems to me the next time he orders you to rape a woman you should probably go ahead and do it. (Don't bother shooting the sergeant -- he could outdraw you in his sleep.)

Does it still count as a fantasy that's not evidence for anything if something like it has probably actually happened?

Good point, although I came up with the scenario before this atrocity came to light.

We'll call it Loren's Kobayashi Maru.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Fantasies, no matter how entertaining (or creepy) they might be, are NOT evidence for anything.

You should probably try to remember this, it is very important.

Suppose you've been drafted into an ethnic-Serbian Bosnian militia. Your unit has been tasked with a spot of ethnic cleansing. You invade a village and take prisoners. Your sergeant orders you to rape one of them; the general wants all the Croatian women raped so they'll have Serb babies. You try to get out of it -- you tell your sergeant the priest says sex outside of marriage is a sin -- so he shrugs and shoots her. It seems to me the next time he orders you to rape a woman you should probably go ahead and do it. (Don't bother shooting the sergeant -- he could outdraw you in his sleep.)

Does it still count as a fantasy that's not evidence for anything if something like it has probably actually happened?

But at this point, you have already helped slaughter at least two villages filled with innocent people. From a moral standpoint, you're the guy who helped slaughter at least two villages filled with innocent people. No matter what choices you end up making, you're always the bad guy in any sort of ethical dilemma.

 

[Bomb#20]

Does it still count as a fantasy that's not evidence for anything if something like it has probably actually happened?

Yes.

In order to count as evidence for anything, it has to have actually happened.

'Probably actually' is just stupid.

Sorry for offending your pedanticness. It means the same thing as "probably".

Oddly enough, the only thing that counts as evidence is, well, evidence.

An IOU for some evidence, probably, maybe, perhaps - nope, that's still not evidence.

So if somebody said moons can never form outside the solar system, and I offered the fact that gas giants in the solar system all have moons and lots of stars outside the solar system have gas giant planets as reason to think moons are probably widespread all over the universe, you'd call that an IOU for evidence? The scenario I presented is an assembly of elements all of which are depressingly common in human experience. If we don't have documented proof of that exact combination having occurred, that's easily accounted for by the same reason that we don't have documented proof of extra-solar moons: because there's an obvious obstacle standing in the way of acquiring whatever evidence about the matter exists.

 

[Bomb#20]

But at this point, you have already helped slaughter at least two villages filled with innocent people. From a moral standpoint, you're the guy who helped slaughter at least two villages filled with innocent people. No matter what choices you end up making, you're always the bad guy in any sort of ethical dilemma.

Very likely; but that doesn't mean you don't have any more ethical judgments to make. Besides, you always shoot to miss. Your officers think you're a pretty sorry excuse for a soldier but they don't really care -- when you miss you're still effective at scaring the non-Serbs into running away, and the officers don't really care whether the villagers live or die as long as they do it somewhere else. You'd love to desert but you're pretty sure you'll suck at it, get caught, and be shot for it. So you just do the best you can to make the ethnic cleansing you don't know how to stop be as much less lethal as you can manage without causing yourself to be perceived as an enemy sympathizer. You're not up for any romantic heroics that will just mean you'll die for a hopeless cause. Yes, you're still going to get prosecuted for war crimes in the end; but what's your better course of action?

 

[bilby]

Yes.

In order to count as evidence for anything, it has to have actually happened.

'Probably actually' is just stupid.

Sorry for offending your pedanticness.

You mean pedantry.

It means the same thing as "probably".

No, it doesn't. It is an attempt to claim more than is supported by the use of 'probably', while trying to keep the respectable truthfulness of 'probably'. It is weasely language, and calling you on it isn't pedantry.

Oddly enough, the only thing that counts as evidence is, well, evidence.

An IOU for some evidence, probably, maybe, perhaps - nope, that's still not evidence.

So if somebody said moons can never form outside the solar system, and I offered the fact that gas giants in the solar system all have moons and lots of stars outside the solar system have gas giant planets as reason to think moons are probably widespread all over the universe, you'd call that an IOU for evidence? The scenario I presented is an assembly of elements all of which are depressingly common in human experience. If we don't have documented proof of that exact combination having occurred, that's easily accounted for by the same reason that we don't have documented proof of extra-solar moons: because there's an obvious obstacle standing in the way of acquiring whatever evidence about the matter exists.

Nope. Your analogy is to a question of fact, not one of morality; and the rules of evidence are necessarily different.

If extra solar moons do not exist, then believing that they probably do does not have any impact on our attitudes towards other humans.

If the scenario you presented earlier is believed to have occurred, but actually does not, then this creates an unfair bias in the mind of the believer.

Courts of law do not accept 'probably happened somewhere to someone' as evidence; they are supposed to require proof beyond reasonable doubt that whatever it was actually did happen to the specified defendant, or to find the defendant not guilty.

 

[Bomb#20]

Sorry for offending your pedanticness.

You mean pedantry.

I mean you, Your Pedanticness.

It means the same thing as "probably".

No, it doesn't. It is an attempt to claim more than is supported by the use of 'probably', while trying to keep the respectable truthfulness of 'probably'. It is weasely language, and calling you on it isn't pedantry.

Oh, I see, you called it stupid when you meant it was weaselly. That's okay then; I'm quite accustomed to people here looking down on my morals due to their poor analytical skills and/or the bugs in their own moral circuitry.

If we don't have documented proof of that exact combination having occurred, that's easily accounted for by the same reason that we don't have documented proof of extra-solar moons: because there's an obvious obstacle standing in the way of acquiring whatever evidence about the matter exists.

Nope. Your analogy is to a question of fact, not one of morality; and the rules of evidence are necessarily different.

That's stupid, a word which here might mean weaselly. Whether a man has ever raped a woman out of a well-founded fear that she'd be killed if he didn't is transparently a question of fact and not a question of morality.

If extra solar moons do not exist, then believing that they probably do does not have any impact on our attitudes towards other humans.

If the scenario you presented earlier is believed to have occurred, but actually does not, then this creates an unfair bias in the mind of the believer.

An unfair bias toward what? Toward believing that nearly all statements of the form "X can never be justified." are hasty generalizations by people who've underestimated the complexity of human morality? Whom will I be biased against or treat in an unfair manner due to my opinion that in mankind's whole sorry 200,000 year history of inter-ethnic warfare, the scenario I described has probably been played out, somewhere, at some time, by someone?