also the point you made about enjoying rape, can it still be considered rape if said person being raped starts to enjoy it?

i would have to say yes, simply because there's nothing in the definition of rape that says anything about the rapee's arousal

whether or not the victim wants to do anything about it is his or her prerogative

if he or she realizes a posteriori that she likes being raped, she can still come to the logical conclusion that the rapist is still an evil scumbag who should be arrested (because he had no right to do what he did), you dig?

If your wife is being raped, for example, I think it's ethically justifiable to kill the fucker who's raping her. Or otherwise incapacitate him. Stopping someone from being raped is... objectively good.

This is a good point because it helps to highlight the difference between "moral" and "right" which people are often confused about.

When something is right, it is usually uncontested; 1+1=2, for example, and there are no other "right" answers to this equation. Every answer that is not 2 is equally wrong.

This is not always true for moral problems simply because they have levels complexity that far exceed straightforward mathematics. With the above rape scenario, for example, killing your wife's rapist may not be most moral course of action to take. But this would require a deep analysis of the variables and weighing of options -- killing the rapist, wounding him and letting the justice system sort him out, etc -- that you probably wouldn't have time for considering your wife is being raped right in front of you. That's not to say there isn't a "right" (as in, most moral) response to the situation, but simply that we often lack the skills required to make them.

However, there are actions here that are clearly immoral: choosing to stand by and do nothing, for example, is indisputably wrong. You have to intervene in some way (a moral imperative). And the actions of the rapist himself are clearly immoral as well.

This is a huge source of confusion. There are some things that are clearly immoral, but others aren't so easy to figure out, and people take this to be a blemish on the concept of objective morality. But it's nothing of the sort, it simply makes logic and reason paramount to making ethical choices in life.

Because Meta says so and you can't win an argument against Meta in Serious

Lol this

God-based morality is a subjective moral theory, because it’s grounded in the attitudes or nature of a person: aka God.

Quote from: Sly Instinct on May 07, 2015, 12:24:26 PM

Quote from: DemonicChronic on May 07, 2015, 12:20:03 PM

God-based morality is a subjective moral theory, because it’s grounded in the attitudes or nature of a person: aka God.

Well I suppose, but I mean God as a being whose perspective is absolute.

The then question turns to the Euthyphro dilema, "is an action good because God commands it, or does God command it because it's good?".   Either anything that God commands, even in contradiction, would be classified as good. Or, good exists outside of God and he is unnecessary.

There aren't many objective traits to humanity, and morality isn't one of them. The human mind is so complex that you can ponder and debate endlessly about what is right, which leaves a lot of grey area.