Inherently wrong actions?

[Acim]

Evolution and natural selection evolved us with brains wired in such a way that we don't want to get raped. Which is why we say rape is immoral and have laws against it. And unless one claims that it was our subjective judgment that made evolution and natural selection produce organisms that don't want to get raped rape is objectively wrong.

But some people do wish to get raped, fantasize about it.

I think we could make blanket judgments about what people apparently want/don't want, play the 'natural selection' card, call it 'objective' and have a field day. I would expect that to be challenged left and right. Like killing is a great example. Doubt anyone wishes to be killed, even if it means self defense for another, so therefore it would always be objectively wrong to kill a person regardless of the circumstances. Oh, and pay no attention to the people who seemingly desire suicide as that is different than being killed by another person, well in most cases.

 

[ArtieE]

I think we could make blanket judgments about what people apparently want/don't want, play the 'natural selection' card, call it 'objective' and have a field day. I would expect that to be challenged left and right. Like killing is a great example. Doubt anyone wishes to be killed, even if it means self defense for another, so therefore it would always be objectively wrong to kill a person regardless of the circumstances.

Given that nobody wishes to be killed and at least one death can't be avoided what is objectively better? The death of a killer or the death of one or more innocent victims?

 

[Acim]

Given that nobody wishes to be killed and at least one death can't be avoided what is objectively better? The death of a killer or the death of one or more innocent victims?

Depends on own morality/ethics. In my ethics, it would be better to be killed than kill another. With Spirit/Reason in the mix, I don't full subscribe to "at least one death can't be avoided" and takes a hypothetical to make it seem as if "there is no possible alternative here." In which case, I would say it is better to be killed than to kill. In our world, a person could have no actual desire to kill you, you (general you) might think they do (and you'd be wrong), so you dream up 'self defense scenario,' kill them, and then claim what I feel like you are getting at, better to kill a killer than be killed.

Helps a bit though that spiritual knowledge informs us that there is no actual death.

 

[ArtieE]

Depends on own morality/ethics. In my ethics, it would be better to be killed than kill another.

In my ethics I'm glad the authorities are not of the opinion that one should simply let killers kill whomever and how many they like because that would be better than killing the killers.

With Spirit/Reason in the mix, I don't full subscribe to "at least one death can't be avoided" and takes a hypothetical to make it seem as if "there is no possible alternative here." In which case, I would say it is better to be killed than to kill. In our world, a person could have no actual desire to kill you, you (general you) might think they do (and you'd be wrong), so you dream up 'self defense scenario,' kill them, and then claim what I feel like you are getting at, better to kill a killer than be killed.

I am talking about real self defense scenarios not imaginary ones.

Helps a bit though that spiritual knowledge informs us that there is no actual death.

If there's no actual death you can't kill anybody either so in your world there are no killers or victims.

 

[Acim]

In my ethics I'm glad the authorities are not of the opinion that one should simply let killers kill whomever and how many they like because that would be better than killing the killers.I am talking about real self defense scenarios not imaginary ones.

I see your version as imaginary ones. Perhaps in hypotheticals, you can have me think otherwise.

If there's no actual death you can't kill anybody either so in your world there are no killers or victims.

In my/our spiritual reality, correct. But I too place faith in the physical, making a whole world of erroneous judgments, which may have me think/imagine such things as killers and victims. At that level of 'thinking,' I choose to go with relative morality to be closer to what I identify as intellectual honesty.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I would in another thread, but not this one. Feel free to start such a thread and invite me in.

I've just been to the 'invite only' debate section and I very quickly became lost - what should I do to create a thread and invite you in, do you know?

And what should we call the thread?

 

[Sonofason]

Evolution and natural selection evolved us with brains wired in such a way that we don't want to get raped. Which is why we say rape is immoral and have laws against it. And unless one claims that it was our subjective judgment that made evolution and natural selection produce organisms that don't want to get raped rape is objectively wrong.

This looks like a reasonable argument for rape being objectively wrong. Add a comma after raped in your last sentence, and it's perfect.