Replies

I believe rape to be wrong because it is something that I would not done to myself or to people for whom I have affection.

As such, I support societial rules that prohibit and punish rape, for they provide a direct benefit to me.

How selfish and presumptuous! Who are you to impose your morality on someone else? What if I worship the Hindi god Kali and show my devotion through ritual killings? Your concept of morality cannot logically say mine is wrong. It also cannot logically say that Saddam's ethics is wrong.

True, such rules means that I would face punishment should I wish to rape another, but I'm willing to accept the tradeoff because of the gains for me and the fact that I really don't want to rape anyone.Were I so inclined with such desires, I would be forced to weigh my desire to commit rape with the fear of possible punishment and the desire to avoid such punishment.

This view is commonly known, and rejected, as "might makes right." The powerful are above the law, because they can escape the penalties, but the rest must submit because the rulers of the state can make them. This is ethics devoid of ethics and reduced to power. You might not choose to exercise the power in a manner akin to people like Saddam and Stalin, but their behavior is consistent with your standard. Which, incidentally, is consistent with the claimed biological mechanism of "survival of the fittest."

"Would you appoint some flowers to reign
In matchless beauty on the plain
The rose (mankind will all agree)
The rose, the queen of flowers should be."

By Sappho, 600 B.C.

Throughout time, "the queen of flowers" has become the flower of kings, queens and sweethearts. There are more than 30,000 varieties of roses.

Historically, roses have been used in extravagant ways. Cleopatra once received Mark Anthony in a room knee deep in rose petals. There are some 4,000 songs about roses. And, of course, just down the road is the annual "Rose Parade."

Roses, you see, are symbols of love, beauty, war and politics, and you’ve all heard of England’s "the war of the roses."

Scripture speaks of ... the Ultimate Rose --– the Rose of Sharon (Song of Solomon, 2:1).

Religious historian, Dr. William Smith states that "the Rose of Sharon," in Eastern tradition, is generally believed to be the sweet scented narcissus, but in Western thought, the Rose of Sharon is the Hibiscus syriacus which especially attracts hummingbirds because of its sweetness. "The Rose of Sharon" demonstrates an interesting phenomenon – it does not bloom until late spring causing many gardeners to believe that it has died; but, to their astonishment, it suddenly resurrects. Considering the legacy of "the Rose of Sharon" in 1922, Ida A. Guirey wrote the song "Jesus, Rose of Sharon."

Jesus, Rose of Sharon, bloom within my heart;
Beauties of thy truth and holiness impart,
That where’er I go, my life may shed abroad
Fragrance of the knowledge of the love of God.
Jesus, Rose of Sharon, sweeter far to see
Than the fairest flowers of earth could ever be

Fill my life completely, adding more each day
Of thy grace divine and purity, I pray.
Jesus, Rose of Sharon, bloom forevermore;
Be thy glory seen on earth from shore to shore,
Till the nations own thy sovereignty complete,
Lay their honors down and worship at thy feet.

Chorus:

Jesus, blessed Jesus, Rose of Sharon, Rose of Sharon,
Bloom in radiance and in love within my heart.

So for you morality is self-referential. It's immoral if it makes you uncomfortable directly or by doing so to those for whom you have affection. What, then, do you say to sadomasochists? They can turture others without violating your standard above.

Whom can they torture? If they are torturing those who have consented, then I have no business telling them to stop. If their torture directly affects unwilling participants then I have a vested interest in working against allowing it because I would prefer to live in a society where neither I nor those for whom I have affection becomes one of those unwilling participants.

Who are you to impose your morality on someone else?

I am me. What's your point?

What if I worship the Hindi god Kali and show my devotion through ritual killings?

What if I don't worship Kali and I don't want to be a ritual killing statistic? Further, I don't want people for whom I have affection to be killed ritualistically. As such, I have a vested interest in a system that prohibits ritualistic killings.

Your concept of morality cannot logically say mine is wrong. It also cannot logically say that Saddam's ethics is wrong.

From an absolute standpoint, no, it cannot. I never claimed as much. It's a matter of what I and others like me find "preferrable". I prefer a society that does not permit baseless murder, because it makes me more secure. I suspect that you would prefer such a setup as well. As such, I support a society that prohibits murder.

This view is commonly known, and rejected, as "might makes right." The powerful are above the law, because they can escape the penalties, but the rest must submit because the rulers of the state can make them.

I'm trying to figure out your point. I don't claim things are perfect or even that great, but are you suggesting that you have a system for defining ethics that I might find more agreeable? If so, I'd like to hear what it is and how you support its existence.

As for a system where people are above the law, well, the solution is to build into the framework a set of checks and balances to prevent anyone from ever being in a position of being "above the law" and being diligent in maintaining this system. Unfortunately, all too often people allow this system to be destroyed either through erosion or through sweet-talking charismatic meglomaniacs who convince people that the system needs to be "tweaked" in such a way that grants them increased authority.