Why can’t rape be objectively wrong?

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, Psychic crocodile said:

@Carl-Richard Rape is harmful.

My point was to get you to concede on the fact that since you have to define the concepts that you use to construct your facts, your "facts" depend on something that is not fact in order to be created (yes, you're creating something; it's not a given, not a self-evident truth that everybody has access to). You've defined what facts are relative to your perspective. You can have people who agree with your perspective and your definitions, but definitions aren't factual. They're fictions on which you write your story, and you can share that story with people who know the language, but only them.

[Danioover9000]

@Consept

2 minutes ago, Consept said:

OK so let me try and clarify what youre saying, Objectivity is not permanent and can change dependent on the situation. It is reached by a consensus of different groups of people who decide whether an action is right or wrong. If they decide its wrong for example it would be objectively wrong, however this can later be changed if new technology or a new perspective comes into being.

Does that sum it up?

   Yes that's right, especially facts involving human behaviors and each society. I think when most people think objective facts they think of like with rocks. It's objectively true that rocks are subject to nature, so they can be solid or semi solid or more liquid and sometimes gaseous like dust clouds And it's taken as belief and not questioned further and take this view onto other people. Also because time flows at certain ranges, not mentioning objective time but subjective time, that some things appear as static and unchangeable and this can last for generations, until something big happens that alters that assumption.

[Psychic crocodile]

@Carl-Richard no, rape is harmful regardless of the perspective. Just because it might not harm the rapist, or just because maybe the victim grows exponentially and positively from that experience, etc etc forever doesn't erase the fact that rape is harmful. And that harm is harm. My point is stop clouding your thoughts with so much nonsense, you can not see clearly if you cloud everything.

[Consept]

2 minutes ago, Psychic crocodile said:

@Consept meh, its contradictory I know. I do think we might be better off without it tho. Dogs are happy enough anyway.

OK well thats a separate argument, maybe we'd be happier if we didnt question 'facts' you might be right. For most people thats the case but i think if youre interested in deeper knowledge you will question them, it could be argued that humans naturally will question so called facts and always push knowledge forward that is how evolution occurs. There were probably some cavemen sitting around saying its a fact only god can make fire and then someone questioned that and made fire themselves. 

[Consept]

5 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Consept

   Yes that's right, especially facts involving human behaviors and each society. I think when most people think objective facts they think of like with rocks. It's objectively true that rocks are subject to nature, so they can be solid or semi solid or more liquid and sometimes gaseous like dust clouds And it's taken as belief and not questioned further and take this view onto other people. Also because time flows at certain ranges, not mentioning objective time but subjective time, that some things appear as static and unchangeable and this can last for generations, until something big happens that alters that assumption.

I get what youre saying but i dont really agree it defines objectivity, it might define relative facts. Theres a quote i found on another forum i thought was quite interesting and relevant - 

"In German we have the distinction between Realität (reality) and Wirklichkeit (which best translates into actuality). Realität equals to the facts we have/know, while Wirklichkeit is what is above that/us." - A german guy 

[Psychic crocodile]

@Consept right.. but I prefer to refer to facts, as facts, when speaking about facts. When you make everything so convoluted, you cant see clearly. And that was my addition to the conversation. If you feel clouded by thought, which op does, find the utmost fact.

[Carl-Richard]

19 minutes ago, Psychic crocodile said:

@Carl-Richard no, rape is harmful regardless of the perspective. Just because it might not harm the rapist, or just because maybe the victim grows exponentially and positively from that experience, etc etc forever doesn't erase the fact that rape is harmful. And that harm is harm. My point is stop clouding your thoughts with so much nonsense, you can not see clearly if you cloud everything.

Just to be clear, I'm no rape apologist, and you might be on the same page, but I just have to be sure. The topic of rape isn't the hill I'm choosing to die on, but rather I'm trying to show you that what you consider to be factual is actually a perspective.

Rape is harmful relative to a certain idea of what harm is (be it physical, emotional, interpersonal, social, psychological harm etc..). My point is that you choose whatever level of analysis you want to engage in, and that makes up your perspective.

For instance, you choose to make the distinction between perpetrator and victim; you choose the definition of harm that makes sense to you; none of this is an universal given fact. Rape is harmful relative to your perspective of what harm is, of what rape is etc..

However, when you concede on the relativity of perspectives, then you can still talk about facts and how things relate within a chosen paradigm, but you realize their relative nature, and you become aware of the mechanics of your own beliefs on a meta-level: you're the puppet that is able to perceive of its own strings.

Edited September 4, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Consept]

1 minute ago, Psychic crocodile said:

@Consept right.. but I prefer to refer to facts, as facts, when speaking about facts. When you make everything so convoluted, you cant see clearly. And that was my addition to the conversation. If you feel clouded by thought, which op does, find the utmost fact.

Fair enough, well its more a definition issue, i would call it relative facts. Usually its fine but humans are subject to bias, emotions, imagination etc, you should always question your thinking otherwise youll end up joining a cult or following qanon or something. 

Final point, quote from wikipedia - "In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject."

We wouldnt be able to know objectivity as we as humans are subjective individuals, to have a completely objective view in a human body is by definition impossible 

[Psychic crocodile]

@Consept nah I get it, i just find most of the excessive thinking to be pointless, especially in cases like this. But I also tend to not treat people like they're idiots and speak to them as if they've already got the context to understand (which is why I came to this site). I find it so dull to write a million disclaimers..

[Psychic crocodile]

@Carl-Richard I get what you're saying. On literally any other topic except abuse, I will agree with you. Abuse is harmful tho, even if the person is stronger afterwards. I get the mentality you're talking about tho. But it's ok to acknowledge abuse as harmful too and also not having to think if it's right or wrong. Humans abuse this earth without a thought, but I guess the collective will have to think to decide this is wrong before they do anything about it. Most people only think in good and bad, emotions. So when we speak about humans and the experience, do we need to remove the essence of humanity to find answers or peace? I think no.

 

To add on, I know many people who are grateful for their experience of suffering because of what they gain. 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Psychic crocodile

[Carl-Richard]

17 minutes ago, Psychic crocodile said:

@Carl-Richard On literally any other topic except abuse, I will agree with you.

Then I don't agree that you agree with me . I'm not at all trying to say that abuse is not a serious thing. I'm saying serious things are relative. I think you should care about not doing harm, you should care about being a better person, and I believe that what I'm providing here is going to help you very much in that direction. All I'm trying to do by saying all this is to prevent harm (the harm of not seeing your own perspective as a perspective)  

Edited September 4, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Psychic crocodile]

@Carl-Richard lol alright dude. You just argued the statement "rape is harmful" tho. And your point is? That I shouldn't call that a fact because of relativity. We are humans, did you forget lol we are harmed constantly. We are not above being human, and our bodies and brains are limited and respond automatically, actually should research the autonomic nervous system,  I think some science might help ground your thoughts.. Are you someone who believes if someone labels themselves as disabled that they are objectively wrong for doing so? 

Lol I am not one dimensional in my thinking btw.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Psychic crocodile

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Psychic crocodile said:

no, rape is harmful regardless of the perspective.

Not it isn't.

If you take a moment to contemplate this, you'll realize that "harm" is a purely relative notion. "Harm" is always defined relative to some ego's needs and desires, which are themselves relative and selfish.

Harm is a relative, subjective, biased, egoic notion.

YOU think rape is harmful. A rapist certainly doesn't think that. And your view has no higher epistemic position than that of a rapist in the absolute sense.

Lots of men genuinely believe that rape is not harmful. And that is true from the POV.

[Gesundheit]

@Leo Gura rape is harmful because it's ego. Resisting sex would make it into rape because of the thick ego. If the victim would let go it would only be sex. But no, we want to have a free will, and that's part of the price we pay.

[fryingLotus]

You can't really argue when the view is 'this is just your view' which is valid but is not useful on all levels of thinking. We are not all operating from a place of non-duality (except we are right?).

You cannot tell a child that his suffering is just because 'this is god's plan'.

Whilst I agree with that statement (and you can in fact say it) it would likely traumatize the child. The child needs love at this moment, or they will be revisiting this in the future, possibly after years of automatic, shadowy, repressed torment, maybe drug addictions, negative thoughts patterns etc.

Sure, there is a cosmic game at play and it is all part of the same thing, but rape (and anything else which causes suffering - albeit suffering is a perspective from the subject involved) can have serious psychological effects.

There is no goal right? But at the same time, there are many goals. We are all working towards something constantly, whilst also working towards nothing. We have to acknowledge that some behaviours are justified for growth, and others not. I would never wish rape on someone for their growth, or for them to experience as part of the great cosmic comedy. That is just twisted and would likely have psychological backfires (or karmic repercussions) for myself. How can I expel thoughts and feelings of suffering towards someone and not feel inner conflict and hate in myself?

My point is...

Self-actualization/individuation/enlightenment is a process. There are many layers to this process.

What stands in the way of someone reaching themselves and truly, fully loving themselves?

Mental concepts, traumas, neurosis, limiting beliefs etc.

I guess we can't really say that anything is right or wrong, however, if I am to have children and there is some unconscious shadow desire in me which is unresolved, then this will likely (or definitely) be passed onto my children. I do not want this. So I will do everything in my power now to relieve these things, let go, heal etc so that it is not something that will occur, or is much less likely to.

I feel to explain and write anyway...

When talking of any issue we must consider the different options and perspectives. What comes from the heart, left and right brain. A very non-dual sciency approach does not feel humane to me. We still live here on this planet, grounded, in duality (no matter how deep or far our awareness stretches. We are here). Compassion and love are key or we could all just run around killing and raping each other because it is part of the grand plan/game (which is what we're doing anyway right?).

Maybe somewhere there is a world where we are all fully aware of our own divinity and this is the case, however, here on planet earth... us humans do what we can to avoid suffering and help those who are suffering.

Of course I am only of a certain level of awareness and intelligence and am just expressing my tiny, minute perspective... but it has been fun to write this out.

[Carl-Richard]

 

10 hours ago, Psychic crocodile said:

@Carl-Richard lol alright dude. You just argued the statement "rape is harmful" tho. And your point is? That I shouldn't call that a fact because of relativity. We are humans, did you forget lol we are harmed constantly. We are not above being human, and our bodies and brains are limited and respond automatically, actually should research the autonomic nervous system,  I think some science might help ground your thoughts.. Are you someone who believes if someone labels themselves as disabled that they are objectively wrong for doing so? 

Lol I am not one dimensional in my thinking btw.

You don't have to be condecending lol. I know the nervous system. I took some courses in human physiology and anatomy in college . Anyways, I think I've made my point clear: rape is harmful in a relative sense, but not in an absolute sense. Facts are relative, not absolute. Learn to differentiate between absolute and relative statements.

Edited September 4, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Consept]

1 hour ago, fryingLotus said:

A very non-dual sciency approach does not feel humane to me.

The assumption that non-duality is not humane i dont think is correct, if you have a non-dual perspective you see everything as yourself or at least that youre connected to everything, in that sense its hard to hurt other sentient beings but is not as if youre trying to live up to some moral code its just that experientially it would be viscerally difficult.

Really we are only able to hurt each other if our level of consciousness is low, a good example is if you join the army they have to brain wash you to some extent so that youre able to kill in battle, but even with this training many still get ptsd after the fact. This suggests that we're not really supposed to be killing each other but are able to do it if we drop our level of consciousness. If you have a high level of consciousness this is not even possible 

[Nahm]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

A rapist certainly doesn't think that. And your view has no higher epistemic position than that of a rapist in the absolute sense.

Lots of men genuinely believe that rape is not harmful. And that is true from the POV.

How exactly is what a rapist thinks known?

Are there you’s, views, rapists, and epistemic positions in the absolute sense?

How is what lots of men believe known?

How is what is true known from someone else’s POV? 

[Danioover9000]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Not it isn't.

If you take a moment to contemplate this, you'll realize that "harm" is a purely relative notion. "Harm" is always defined relative to some ego's needs and desires, which are themselves relative and selfish.

Harm is a relative, subjective, biased, egoic notion.

YOU think rape is harmful. A rapist certainly doesn't think that. And your view has no higher epistemic position than that of a rapist in the absolute sense.

Lots of men genuinely believe that rape is not harmful. And that is true from the POV.

   And these statements are relative and partial too.

[fryingLotus]

1 hour ago, Consept said:

The assumption that non-duality is not humane i dont think is correct, if you have a non-dual perspective you see everything as yourself or at least that youre connected to everything, in that sense its hard to hurt other sentient beings but is not as if youre trying to live up to some moral code its just that experientially it would be viscerally difficult.

Really we are only able to hurt each other if our level of consciousness is low, a good example is if you join the army they have to brain wash you to some extent so that youre able to kill in battle, but even with this training many still get ptsd after the fact. This suggests that we're not really supposed to be killing each other but are able to do it if we drop our level of consciousness. If you have a high level of consciousness this is not even possible 

You're right, it's not inhumane but I feel that there is a somewhat perverse approach to non-duality that is a misinterpretation (at least through the eyes of beings that are living in duality and are prone to suffering).

I feel resonant with this because I used to be somewhat brainwashed into this way of thinking... and it just results in egoic cycles (egoic in this sense as a sense of self importance or knowing, rather than a softer, open and compassionate world view).

What wisdom is it to bypass acknowledgement of suffering because we are all part of the same source? It makes sense, sure, but we are all in this game together, all at different levels, and the way some of these non-dual approaches come across seem to take the vibe of 'just snap out of it'.

Just to add to what you've said... myself I can experience very painful emotions very blissfully, if I so choose to. It is occasionally offensive and horrifying to my ego but it is possible, and the deeper or more intense the pain, the more bliss and pleasure arises from the experience.

This being said... I do not wish to continue on in a regular state of pain just because this is the almighty plan. I believe there is an end to this pain once the experience has been had in totality. If this is bullshit please let me know so I can end it sooner (lol).

But yeah... on the 'lowering our consciousness to hurt each other'. Sure... this is what I'm talking about and is something that seems to be missed by some (ie that war is just love because we are all one source etc). It's a view, but not one that seems to be of service to all. Whilst it is technically true, I don't believe that it is a true representation of a consciously evolved society, which sounds like what you're saying anyway.

Overall I am just trying to touch on this potentially distorted view of non-duality that some seem to have.

This view differs greatly from say that of Saiva Tantra (which is a beautifully rich philosophy).