Rape is bad.

Rape is Bad MkayThe Fool: Well then, sounds like a challenge. http://www.youtube.com... Let's get on!For starters, clearly we can blame anyone for anything, but I believe what is in question is whether or not one is right or wrong in doing so. By the use of the term "bad", I have good reason to believe, that you do not believe that "rape" is morally wrong, and your belief, is based off the fact that you don't believe in objective truth. On ObjectivityOkay, first thing we need to establish is what objective truth IS. Objectivity, for the most part can be defined or thought of in at least a few ways. Some would define objectivity, as simply being a democratic standard. In other words, they would think that something is objective because most of us agree that it is. However, if this were true, there would be no difference between group subjectivity. But subjectivity, is in a sense the very opposite of objectivity. So that will not do. Another candidate for objectivity, is simply the existence of something, which is not merely dependent upon what we believe. Since well, it is possible to make mistakes and we cannot be mistaken about what we ourselves believe, by virtue of what it means to have a belief, then there must exist objective truth.. Therefore, it suffices that objective truth is merely something which is the case, or can at least partially exist regardless of what one thinks... On MoralityNow it is time to establish what constitutes morality, or at least an essential component of morality. Since you've used the term "bad" we can use that to ground what we mean. The approach I will take is simply to find something, which is "bad", for everybody, in all cases. The obvious candidate, is suffering. Suffering, simply for the sake of suffering, is bad in itself. One may argue that, "there exists sado-masochists who enjoy suffering", but this is incorrect. Enjoying physical pain, is not the same thing as enjoying suffering, for when sado-masochists say they enjoy "pain", what they enjoy is a psychological pleasure, stimulated by physical pain. So in essence, they are not really suffering. Another common objection to suffering as a standard, is that sometimes people choose to suffer; say for example a triathlete, who in a sense punishes themselves. But a triathlete is not punishing themselves for the sake of punishment but because they enjoy the competition, and of course winning. That is, they suffer for the sake of some better end, but certainly not for the sake of suffering itself. Suffering itself for the sake of itself and no greater end, is always bad. Argument From Two Worlds?Lastly, let's assume for the sake of argument, that there exist only two worlds; One of eternal hell and damnation, and one of eternal pleasure. It's safe to say that every well informed rational being would choose the latter rather than the former, and so it is universal for all rational beings, that the former is better, than the latter. This "betterness" is not merely subjective, as it is not simply particular two one individual or society, but all people who experienced, regardless of what another person thinks. Therefore suffering is not merely depended upon what we believe, but shares in the fact that we feel. Who is Responsible?In ethics, all sentient being (beings with the capacity to suffer) are part of the moral community that "ought to" be protected. However, only the rational can be held responsible for their actions. What I mean by rational being is a being able to make well informed balance decisions. By balance decisions, I mean the ability to balance their beliefs, judgments and actions to correspond with their knowledge base. By informed decision, I mean, a decision based off a sufficient knowledge base. It is universal across all cultures that children are held less responsible for their actions then grown adults, and this is because of their lack of knowledge, and general psychological development. The age consent does roughly correlate with adult brain development. This gives us an objective measure for rationality. Also we can understand why somebody who has autism, ought to not necessarily be held responsible, insofar as they cannot build a knowledge base of how others are being affected. Rape is not GreatIt should be no surprise, that it has been scientifically demonstrated that rape, most particularly, (but not exclusive to) violent rape against a resisting victim suffers, not only causes suffering during the experience but psychologically after the actual rape experience.[1] Since then, the victim of rape does not like a triathlete rationally choose to suffer for some better end or enjoyment, and thus has not given some form of implicit consent, those who are rational, and do so anyways, ought be held responsible for such an immoral action. Rewind That Back One TimeP1. Objectivity truth consist of anything which can exist at least partially, separate from one or more individuals.P2. Suffering, for the sake of suffering is always bad.P3. Rational beings, can be held responsible for causing "badness."P4. It's been demonstrated by induction that rape causes suffering.C1. Therefore a rational individual who rapes somebody, is objectively acting badly and ought to be held responsible. [1] http://www.tandfonline.com... Rape is not cool, Vote Fool!