Direct Intervention From God Is Worse Then Rape

Since this is not a topic originating from scholarly argument, but rather from an off-handed discourse, this exchange is sure to be original and invigorating. Con's Opening ArgumentFirst of all, all of the points brought up by Con have already been addressed in my opening argument. So rather then bring up new points, I will instead further expound on my previous contentions with respect to what has been said by Con. Now Con advances the following arguments: The greatest desire of all human beings is to go to Heaven, and it is impossible to have a greater desire. God should remove all false beliefs from a person's mind so that they will choose Heaven. Rape is wrong because it is done with malicious intent and causes harm, not because it is done without a person's consent. However, while Con argues in this order, I will actually be offering rebuttals to these points backwards. This is because 3) is an incoherent view of morality that leads to absurd conclusions, and the falseness of 2) and 1) can only be established once 3) has been properly refuted. Why Is Rape Wrong? Con would have us believe that rape is wrong merely because it is done with selfish intent and causes physical harm. While I agree that causing harm in this situation is certainly wrong, the rationale behind this view is flawed and leads to morally acceptable situations being immoral, and immoral situations being acceptable. Con forgets that the whole reason causing harm with selfish intent is immoral is because it is done without a person's consent or against a person's personal wishes. It is a violation of a person's privacy to the utmost extreme. The moral wrongness of causing harm to a person is not derived from the mere fact that one has caused harm, but from the fact that one has caused harm to a person without their consent. This view of morality fits reality much better then Con's view of morality. To illustrate, let's examine Con's first criteria for why rape is wrong, that is, because it is done with selfish intent. Here Con shoots himself in the foot. You see, if God forces a person to choose Him, he is making that person do what HE wants that person to do. He is completely ignoring a person's overriding desire and is imposing his desires on that person. He does not have a person's best interest in mind, because he does not have that person's interests in mind at all. He doesn't care about what a person truly wants, but rather what he thinks a person should want. If God forces a person into heaven, he is doing so with selfish intent. However, let us assume that somehow God has a selfless reason for Direct Intervention, this does not necessarily render what he's done moral. In fact, I think one can have selfless intentions and yet still commit an immoral act. Consider the rapist who instead of raping a girl because he wants sexual pleasure, rapes a girl with the sole purpose of causing her to experience sexual pleasure. Is this still wrong? Of course it is. Therefore selfish or selfless intent is irrelevant. "Ah yes! ", you might reply, "But is not rape wrong because of the harm it causes? " And of course, at face value it would appear that this is indeed true. But upon further examination one can only conclude that this view of morality is incoherent. Consider a situation in which a man drugs a girl at a party with a non-harmful anesthetic. He continues to rape her, but does so in such a way as to not harm her body. Because she is unconscious, she does not remember the event, and therefore suffers no psychological harm. Now, is this immoral? According to Con, it couldn't be! But wait, the girl was raped! Is some rape immoral, but other rape moral? How absurd to think that if no harm is done, no wrong has been done! It doesn't end here of course, you see, if causing a person harm is the sole reason for why something is immoral, then all sorts of morally neutral situations are immoral! For example, imagine a guy named Joe who pays for a skydiving trip and gives full written consent to his skydiving assistant and the skydiving company. In the plane, the skydiving assistant has to jump first, thus causing Joe to fall with him. On the way down, there are complications and a strong gust of wind pushes Joe and his assistant into a building, causing Joe injury. Now, according to Con's rationale, it was morally wrong for the skydiving assistant to cause Joe to fall with him because it caused Joe injury. But this is absurd, Joe gave full written consent to being pushed into the air! He also gave full written consent to possibly being injured. Indeed, Con's view of morality leads to many absurd conclusions. In conclusion, it is absurd to think that rape is wrong merely because it causes physical harm. Rape is truly wrong because is a sexual act forced onto a person without their consent. Greatest Desire Vs. Overriding DesireCon argues that the greatest desire of all human beings is for eternal bliss. However, the evidence simply does not support Con's view. As I have previously stated, the fact that anyone would choose emotional or rational objections over the possibility of achieving eternal bliss is solid evidence that the greatest desire of all human beings is not necessarily eternal bliss. After all, if that was your greatest desire, the one thing you wanted, why on earth would you endanger your chances? Now, this does not necessarily commit one to the view that there are people who do not desire eternal bliss at all. As Con has previously stated, it is logically impossible to desire something greater then heaven, since nothing is greater. Now, while it may be true that one can not desire anything greater then heaven, this has no bearing on whether one can have a "greater desire". Desire is measured in how much one desires something, not how great that something is. Indeed, desire is far too subjective for it to be objectively matched to specific items. It may be true that everyone desires eternal bliss, but it doesn't follow that they consequently desire that eternal bliss as much as they desire something else, for example, power or control, having heaven on one's terms. Therefore, one can have an overriding desire that is greater then one's desire for eternal bliss, which is what causes a person to reject God. Should God Make Us Desire Him? Here Con advances some rather bizarre arguments. For example, that God should correct "wrong views", that is, Con is suggesting that God should change a person's mind, without their consent. Right off the bat we can see the problem with this view. Con argues that God should essentially reprogram people so that they will choose him. But would this really be their choice? After all, they certainly wouldn't be choosing him of their own free will, in fact, it'd just be the opposite, it'd be God choosing himself. Also, how could this be love? How could one truly reciprocate love when one's reciprocation isn't even the result of choice, but rather of programming? In the end it can not be moral to remove or add beliefs without a person's consent. Also, there is nothing immoral about going to Hell, or moral about going to Heaven. You go to hell if you sin, but you don't sin because you go to Hell. Consequently, Heaven is where the sinless go, but it is not necessarily moral to go to Heaven. Both places are merely destinations. Just like you go to jail because you broke the law, but going to jail itself isn't necessarily against the law. Finally, what of the idea that one can have a wrong view? Should not God change these views? The fact of the matter is that beliefs are largely irrelevant. Beliefs are chosen. You may choose a wrong belief but there's nothing wrong with choosing a wrong belief. To alter these choices, is to alter one's desire. To go against a person's overriding desires, without a person's consent, and therefore, immoral. The resolution is affirmed.