Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

[Poem]

Good point. Especially given that earlier versions of

Any sign of those objective morals yet?

Why is that porn we discussed abhorrent?

 

[Poem]

Nihilist Friedrich Nietzsche predicted it would destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history. (IEP)

 

[acbytesla]

Please address the following:

You aren't even trying to understand my answers to your questions.

The universe doesn't care. There are no universal objective morals. We as human being decide what is good and bad. If you and I, agree on values we can together make objective assessments on what is good and bad. But if we don't share the same values, our objective assessments are going to be different.

I base morality on well being. My well being and the well being of others. Most people usually agree that life is generally preferable to death. Health is generally preferable to sickness. Pleasure is generally preferable to pain. Truth is generally preferable to lies. If we use this criteria we will generally agree what is good or bad, and right or wrong.

But there is no universal imperative that we agree to such criteria. Still, there is no universal requirement we agree to such criteria. But most people do.

But it's important to acknowledge that ethics is situational. There are situations where lying or stealing or killing may be the most moral thing you can do.

 

[acbytesla]

Nihilist Friedrich Nietzsche predicted it would destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history. (IEP)

So? That's an argument from authority. And Nietzche is probably one of the last persons that I would listen to for a lesson on morality.

 

[Lithrael]

(...) the upshot of such an ideology is that anybody, if they so which, can define sex to have no moral consequence and then proceed to engage in such an act with a minor.

I don't know, Poem, I feel like my subjective sense of morality rules the 'and then' part out pretty damn effectively. But what in the sam hill has this got to do with porn?

 

[Lithrael]

(...) the upshot of such an ideology is that
anybody, if they so which, can define sex to have no moral consequence and then
proceed to engage in such an act with a minor.

Also just to make this clear. The hilited is quite simply always true whenever it is physically possible. It's not an 'upshot' of any ideology.

Anyone who isn't interested in the wellbeing of others can decide to do immoral things if they want. Just like anyone who is interested in the wellbeing of others doesn't need any big guns to back up their personal sense of morality.

 

[theprestige]

Also just to make this clear. The hilited is quite simply always true whenever it is physically possible. It's not an 'upshot' of any ideology.

Anyone who isn't interested in the wellbeing of others can decide to do immoral things if they want. Just like anyone who is interested in the wellbeing of others doesn't need any big guns to back up their personal sense of morality.

By the same token, nobody else has big enough (philosophical) guns to say that anyone else's personal sense of morality is mistaken.

 

[Lithrael]

By the same token, nobody else has big enough (philosophical) guns to say that anyone else's personal sense of morality is mistaken.

Sure. But I don't need to prove that objectively right or wrong. It's irrelevant.

All I need is for enough people to agree with me that we need the laws I think are necessary, enforced or written and vice versa. Which is what we do. Granted it's not perfect, since people do disagree on things. But it's not the world's worst thing to have to campaign for support of what I think is moral.

Though of course, eating kittens is just plain... plain wrong! And no one should do it, ever!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Though of course, eating kittens is just plain... plain wrong! And no one should do it, ever!

Sounds like you've never had them Buffalo style.

 

[Helen]

There is no meat on kittens. You should wait until they're adult.

 

[novaphile]

There is no meat on kittens. You should wait until they're adult.

Nah.

Cats, like all carnivores, taste horrible.

 

[Helen]

Nah.

Cats, like all carnivores, taste horrible.

I have wondered what that foul aftertaste was...

 

[Poem]

There are no universal objective morals. We as human being decide what is good and bad. If you and I, agree on values we can together make objective assessments on what is good and bad. But if we don't share the same values, our objective assessments are going to be different.

I base morality on well being. My well being and the well being of others. Most people usually agree that life is generally preferable to death. Health is generally preferable to sickness. Pleasure is generally preferable to pain. Truth is generally preferable to lies. If we use this criteria we will generally agree what is good or bad, and right or wrong.

But there is no universal imperative that we agree to such criteria. Still, there is no universal requirement we agree to such criteria. But most people do.

But it's important to acknowledge that ethics is situational. There are situations where lying or stealing or killing may be the most moral thing you can do.

I understand all this acbytesla but it still does not address the essence of what I am trying to say. If, as you say:

We can then decide for ourselves what has meaning and what doesn't. We don't require others to assign the meaning of life to us.

then the sexual act (in whatever form) can be considered purely in terms of it's pleasurable aspect without any further meaning or moral import. However, societies don't generally permit such a 'definition' of sex when it comes to underage sex. Meaning and morality are assigned to the sexual act in such circumstances. This implies that there is something about sex that is meaningful. We don't and won't put an adult in prison for scratching a child's back (and we won't do so either for an adult), so sex is a materially different act from that.

What is it about sex that has led us to make it meaningful in this way? Proceeding down the path of subjective assignment, as you and others have been emphasising is dangerous is it not? Why else has the US permitted pornographic content that is illegal in the UK?

 

[acbytesla]

I understand all this acbytesla but it still does not address the essence of what I am trying to say. If, as you say:

then the sexual act (in whatever form) can be considered purely in terms of it's pleasurable aspect without any further meaning or moral import. However, societies don't generally permit such a 'definition' of sex when it comes to underage sex. Meaning and morality are assigned to the sexual act in such circumstances. This implies that there is something about sex that is meaningful. We don't and won't put an adult in prison for scratching a child's back (and we won't do so either for an adult), so sex is a materially different act from that.

I don't know if it is or it isn't. It does probably mean that society has decided that humans need to develop both physically, intellectually, and emotionally to process the ramifications. And that society is concerned that adults will take advantage of that person's underdeveloped state.

What is it about sex that has led us to make it meaningful in this way? Proceeding down the path of subjective assignment, as you and others have been emphasising is dangerous is it not? Why else has the US permitted pornographic content that is illegal in the UK?

I don't know. That said, I am not bothered.

 

[Poem]

I don't know if it is or it isn't.

You do not know if there is any material difference between scratching someone else's itch and having sex with them?

It does probably mean that society has decided that humans need to develop both physically, intellectually, and emotionally to process the ramifications.

Ramifications? The ramifications of performing a meaningless act with no moral import?

And that society is concerned that adults will take advantage of that person's underdeveloped state.

You are ascribing meaning even though you imply there is no meaning. Take advantage of what exactly? Their sex has been redefined as a meaningless act hasn't it?

I don't know. That said, I am not bothered.

You are not bothered because you do not if fact ascribe any special meaning to the sex act.

Your ideology is contradictory and extremely dangerous.

 

[Lithrael]

You are ascribing meaning even though you imply there is no meaning.

People are saying 'there is no objective, universal meaning; there is only the meaning that individuals and societies assign' and you are hearing only 'there is no meaning.'

People are saying 'sex between consenting adults is as big a deal (or not) as they feel it is' and you are hearing 'sex is never a big deal.'

People are saying 'we don't mind about consenting adults doing whatever they like with one another' and you respond with 'why would you think children shouldn't be able to consent?'

Okay here I'll try. Developing people have different amounts of saavy. Most agree it is bad to take advantage of a kid for something the kid was not yet in a position to properly evaluate for themselves. Whether that's a contract for their labor or their likeness or access to their body or whatever. We have clear reasons to think this is bad, such as, kids who were taken advantage of, growing up and being angry that their states of ignorance were exploited.

 

[Poem]

People are saying 'there is no objective, universal meaning; there is only the meaning that individuals and societies assign' and you are hearing only 'there is no meaning.'

People are saying 'sex between consenting adults is as big a deal (or not) as they feel it is' and you are hearing 'sex is never a big deal.'

People are saying 'we don't mind about consenting adults doing whatever they like with one another' and you respond with 'why would you think children shouldn't be able to consent?'

Okay here I'll try. Developing people have different amounts of saavy. Most agree it is bad to take advantage of a kid for something the kid was not yet in a position to properly evaluate for themselves. Whether that's a contract for their labor or their likeness or access to their body or whatever. We have clear reasons to think this is bad, such as, kids who were taken advantage of, growing up and being angry that their states of ignorance were exploited.

You have misunderstood me and are clearly ascribing meaning to that which you believe is only ascribable in a subjective way. And what makes you think adults are capable of properly evaluating for themselves?

Let me quote you here where you double down on the subjective nature of meaning:

There are a bunch of reasons most people prefer monogamy, from ensuring a kid's provenance, to avoiding STDs, to avoiding drama, to the worry that a partner could fall in love with someone else and want to break up the current partnership and become monogamous with them instead.

Some of these reasons make more sense than others, but at the end of the day they are all preferences, which everybody is allowed to have, and which everybody who wants to be in a serious relationship ought to be communicating.

 

[acbytesla]

You do not know if there is any material difference between scratching someone else's itch and having sex with them?

Nope

Ramifications? The ramifications of performing a meaningless act with no moral import?

Society has a way of taking meaningless things and influencing people to give those things meaning. Everything from awards to money to sex. Nothing unusual there.

You are ascribing meaning even though you imply there is no meaning. Take advantage of what exactly? Their sex has been redefined as a meaningless act hasn't it?

No, I'm not. Any meaning the act may have is a result of the individuals involved.

You are not bothered because you do not if fact ascribe any special meaning to the sex act.

Not to the sex act itself. No.

Your ideology is contradictory and extremely dangerous.

Says who? You? Yawn.

What precisely about my ideology is dangerous? Since I respect others feelings and bodily autonomy, I don't see how it is dangerous to anyone.

 

[Lithrael]

You (...) are clearly ascribing meaning to that which you believe is only ascribable in a subjective way.

Yes, I am. Of course I am. I believe that is how ascribing meaning works. I'm telling you about the meaning I've ascribed. We must be talking at cross purposes, because I don't understand what you seem to find inconsistent etc about my position.

(...) And what makes you think adults are capable of properly evaluating for themselves?

Well I mean, some people remain (or become) feckless but they have generally had the opportunity to gain enough life experience to try to figure out how to properly evaluate what they want from their own relationships (and learned how to tell whether their potential partner is lying/scheming/taking advantage of them in a way they'd find unacceptable in the cold light of day, like if they saw it happening to someone else, weren't blinded by the attention etc).

But broadly speaking, again subjectively, I believe in allowing people to act freely until/unless there is clear demonstrable harm. I also am willing to compromise on using 'the rules meant to keep people safe' on everybody without carving out exceptions for edge cases (a 30 yr old may not schtup the one genuinely precocious 15 yr old, just as the one person who is capable of safely driving on the highway at 100 mph is nevertheless not allowed to do that.)

We have (hotly debated, as is right and proper) legal mechanisms for those adults that might genuinely not be able to. And we have a few legal mechanisms for adults that fall prey to romance scams, but I'll gladly stand up and say we are currently failing to protect a hell of a lot of vulnerable people from those. People are getting their lives ruined, in the form of falling for fake relationships and sending fake people all their money and then taking out loans to send even more.

 

[catsmate]

Are you suggesting that we cannot counter such subjectivity? - that we cannot deny the point of view of:

This is a strawman, and a rather unpleasant one.