P
PRmerger
Guest
It would indeed be the consistent thing to do–if one refuses to bake a cake for a homosexual union, one ought to refuse to bake a cake for an adulterous union, and for a union which would only result in fornication.
- Status
F
friardchips
Guest
Not that we’re making judgements about what the couple will or won’t do but rather that our assessment and action is based on the word ‘marriage’ itself and what this blessing entails with its objective being towards family life. From that, we assert that a true premise for marriage, would require conjugal physical relations.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
No, I don’t.
The evaluation of an act cannot be separated from the circumstances, the motive and the result - according to the church (on one hand). On the other hand the church also says that some acts are “intrinsically” evil, and does not care about the circumstances, the motives and the results. This is the typical “I want to have that cake, and eat it, too” kind of reasoning. It does not fly.
Actually we deal here with a variant of the “trolley problem”. There are instances of dilemmas where there is no “good” outcome. Yet, one is forced to make a decision. In such a case one must choose the lesser of two “evils”. As such the “evil” deed can be justified - so it will not be considered “evil” any more.
C
cena
Guest
You don’t think rape is intrinsically evil? How can someone even try to justify that
P
PRmerger
Guest
Wow. Just wow.
Can you give a circumstance in which the act of rape may be morally permissible?
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
Rape cannot be justified in almost all cases. But there might be circumstances when it could be justified. Observe, that I do not use the word “evil”, because your definition of “evil” probably differs from mine. I use the neutral phrase of “non-justifiable” action under the given circumstances.
F
friardchips
Guest
Make that a double-wow.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Sorry to butt in, but I’m curious. The legal definition of rape in the UK is penetration of the vagina, mouth or anus with a penis in the absence of consent. In what circumstances could this be justified?
M
minkymurph
Guest
Your quite right. If the bakery had lied and said they were too busy discrimination would have been very difficult to prove.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
Of course I can.
If the alternative would be the extermination of the human race, or a significant portion thereof. Suppose that a terrorist would threaten to release a deadly virus, which would wipe out (almost) everyone. The only way to prevent it is to divert his attention by raping his daughter long enough to let a SWAT team inside and prevent the deed. It is obviously a very farfetched scenario, but so what?
As I said before, we deal here with a variant of the trolley problem .
The same reply goes to minkymurph.
The point is that sometimes you are dealt some “cards” which do not allow you to make a decision that you could be comfortable with. In such a case you just clench your teeth and “do what you gotta do” (as Leela said in Futurama). Obviously you do not “enjoy” the act you must perform, and if there would be any other option which would not be as “unpalatable” as this one, you would choose the alternate scenario.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes–Peter Plato made such a suggestion as well.
Let’s examine this scenario–you are suggesting repetitively raping this girl, yes, in order to impregnate her?
Repetitively raping her.
As if once were not horrific enough.
And this would be morally permissible in your world view?
P
PRmerger
Guest
In the Christian ethos, this would not be permissible.
There is no morality in doing evil that good may come.
The evil done to this poor 3yr old little girl does not justify the good that may come.
And I see this scenario as with a toddler.
Absolutely horrific and vile.
F
friardchips
Guest
The end does not justify the means.
(Please don’t being Futurama into this. I used to watch and enjoy that).
F
friardchips
Guest
The alternative solution would be to pray. This rules out Leela.
M
minkymurph
Guest
I think your line of argument is too easily refuted. The ‘so what’ is if the scenario is highly unlikely to arise. It is purely hypothetical and thus justification cannot be established outside a remote degree of uncertainty.
It is highly unlikely to only way a SWAT team could divert his attention would be by raping his daughter. If he is intending to obliterate the human race would it not include his daughter? Thus, would he care if his daughter was raped.? If not, it would not distract him. You do acknowledge your scenario is far fetched so I think you need to come up with something more realistic to make your argument rape in certain circumstances can be justified.
In addition your scenario is not unlike another once discussed on CAF, that if the human race was faced with extinction no would be gay because they would want to preserve the human race.
What about another scenario - no one cares if the human race becomes extinct?
The scenario you describe would be insufficient to secure a conviction of rape.
The defense to an allegation of rape is the defendant had a reasonable belief the complainant consented. It doesn’t matter why the defendant had that reasonable belief. It is sufficient they did.
The fact you do not enjoy the act is insufficient to establish lack of consent. Sex under duress in the UK is not rape. So ‘clenching your teeth’ and ‘doing what you gotta do’ would at law in the UK be considered consent because begrudged consent is still consent.
I conclusion, to make your argument rape in certain circumstance is justified you must establish beyond reasonable doubt there was no consent. The scenario you describe falls short of that threshold.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Trenchant point.
Indeed.
Not relevant to this absurdly hypothetical scenario, but apropos to your comment above, it is interesting to note that biologically a woman who is raped may achieve orgasm–it is a physiological response, and nothing more–but that does not mean she wasn’t raped.
jflmjournal.org/article/S1353-1131(03)00153-6/abstract
F
friardchips
Guest
He’d care.
There was a story in the OT, when angels came to destroy Gomorrah: the father of some girls, offered them to a mob at his door, who wanted the visitors (the angels) for their ‘amusement’.
P
PRmerger
Guest
He’s going to kill her in a few minutes, but you think he’d stop this in order to prevent her from being raped?
That’s absurd.
F
friardchips
Guest
I don’t follow. It is late here.
What will he stop to prevent what? I’m not understanding your side of things.
M
minkymurph
Guest
In this story the mob were not going to obliterate the human race with a deadly virus.
What’s to stop the terrorist from obliterating the human race, including his daughter, while she is being raped by the SWAT team or when they have finished?
- Status