I want to make this a poll, but there are just too many possibilities and factors as I see it. Anyway, this is intended to be something along the lines of 'Your life vs the life of a random person' only here we're talking human vices. How many lives would you sacrifice to permanently and totally rid the human soul of one horror (rape, murder, sexual abuse, etc.)? This horror would forever be forgotten, never to even be considered again by anyone, the entire concept is erased.

How many lives would you sacrifice? Would you be willing to include yourself? Those you love? Are we talking a city, a nation, a continent? How about everyone who had committed it? Everyone who had been a victim of it (extend to close friends and family for something like murder)? Please specify what you would want to erase as well. What would it cost to totally purify the human soul?

Since I don't believe in souls I wouldn't kill anyone and I don't see how killing people is a viable solution to prevent other humans from doing something.

The sacrifice wouldn't be the humans killed, but would be the freedom to perform the horror. If a person can not committ evil then they can not committ good.

The Bible says Thou Shalt not Kill. Killing people is one of the most Grievous of sins (the most grievous that you can do to another).

Further, it has been tried in past civilizations, but it never succeeded. In Ancient Israel, they executed anyone caught committing some of these things they ruled impure, but there was always someone committing these sins.

It's part of human nature (an ugly part, but a part nonetheless). To excise any one of these items from human nature would, to me, mean a radical change in the way we are wired -- there may be some odd reason that some of the behaviors you want to remove were actually beneficial to individual or group survival. (I dunno, but I'd be willing to argue it over a beer.)

It could go both ways...and I frankly think this sort of thing wouldnt work, philosophical though the nature of the argument may be.

I would have no problem with that if I were a far-right bigot.

What I meant was if there was some way to totally excise that thought from human consciousness (or sub-consciousness), but whatever the process was, it required the sacrifice of human lives. So assume it is possible and that humans would be just as self-centered as before, only they wouldn't seek to fulfill that self-centeredness through this action. So long as we are talking about individual actions, there are always other ways to be evil.

The last question, "What would it take to purify the human soul" was meant as more of a mood setter than anything else. Personally, I think it would take the lives of every single human being, which would kind of defeat the purpose. Anyway, it wasn't meant to be the center of discussion.

Think of it this way, would you be willing to give your life to ensure, 100% that no one was ever raped again?

How is this question relevant for a Christian? I thought you guys believed that accepting Jesus as the Savior was supposed to cleanse the soul?

That refers to your personal soul, I was talking about the general soul of humanity. You can consider that as a sum set of all souls in humanity from this time forward if that helps. Anyway, I'm just asking to see what you think. As a Christian, I believe that all sins were permitted to exist by God, and thus there is a reason for them. "All things work for the good of those who serve the Lord" and all that.

Then the answer is simple - NONE. It;s not my place to decide what sacrfices other people should make, and since I believe that the "soul of humanity" is the sum of the souls of humankind, it's up to each individual to get his- or herself in order if we're to have a chance.

I don't understand this question at all. Are you saying that we should kill people to make other people forget about being raped? I don't see the connection.

Don't stretch too hard looking for an explanation, Abom & HB. This is just a hypothetical. Of course there's no way (that we know of, anyway) that killing people would erase a particular action from the world. But IF it could...

My answer is similar to dmc's, but with an addendum. What if the action was replaced by a worse one? What if getting rid of racial discrimination caused an epidemic of premarital sex and teen pregnancy as everyone suddenly found more people attractive? Yeah, the example is a little out there, but the point of it is that screwing with the delicate balance of human psychology is a bad idea.

Erasing concepts doesn't make much point, I think... Maybe if you led people to abandoning the bad ways. But as choice rather than programming, anyway.

I would shoot a perv to prevent him from raping someone, but I wouldn't shoot a perv to erase the concept of abuse. He's not responsible for the concept itself and the trade doesn't feel too good.

Oh I understand what he was meaning but I wouldn't agree even if it was possible. The idea of removing all rape from the world is attractive, I'll admit. But if there was no such thing as rape then there couldn't be any such thing as sex.

Ok, some interesting answers, but Ab's last point didn't make any sense to me. Without rape there can be no sex? How does that figure?

Because rape is simply one person forcing sex upon another. I really don't understand it exactly myself but if there's no such thing as rape what is forcing sex upon another, then?

Gah, it's just that I can't see there ever being some type of mental roadblock that prevents humans from doing something. It's inconcieveable and frankly just doesn't make any sense.

To be honest, if humanity were so entrenched in corruption that taking such means would be necessary, I'd rather the human race obliterated itself.

Rape is a violent crime, not a sexual crime.

As somone who has had both rape and sexual abuse affect those very close to me, I would give up alot to see it dissapear, if I thought it would rid us of this blight.

Rape actually is a sexual crime. Just because you want to emphasise the violent aspect of it doesn't give you the right to erase the sexual side. Or if you wish to comfort the victims of it, it's still misguided, if the method of achieving it relies on denying the truth in favour of some convenient ideological fiction.

Simply put, rape is sex under force. No force, no rape. No sex, no rape. Rape is as sexual as it is violent and it is a violent sexual crime, or, if you prefer, a violent crime and a sexual one. The sexual aspect is what makes it special among violent crimes. There is no ground to classify rape outside the catalogue of sexual crimes and there's no reason whatsoever to pretend it isn't one if it is, because pretending doesn't solve anything anyway. Especially not crime.

However well-meant your slogan might be, it ends up leading to rape being seen as just one of the violent crimes, somewhere between assault and battery, which is a gross misunderstanding. It's like telling armed robbery victims they've only been terrorised.

I'm actually surprised that, given the proximity to victims, you are still willing to deface the truth about it.

Because rape is simply one person forcing sex upon another. I really don't understand it exactly myself but if there's no such thing as rape what is forcing sex upon another, then?

Gah, it's just that I can't see there ever being some type of mental roadblock that prevents humans from doing something. It's inconcieveable and frankly just doesn't make any sense.Hmm?

Your no rape ergo no sex kind of claim suggests that all sex is rape, which is false. You might want to rephrase your claim. ;)

Your no rape ergo no sex kind of claim suggests that all sex is rape, which is false. You might want to rephrase your claim. I think it was more along the lines of, "the only sure way to get rid of rape is to get rid of sex". Because with rape only being forced sex, if there's still sex someone's surely going to 're-invent' rape sooner or later, even perhaps by accident.

For there to never be any rape, ever again, even by misunderstanding...well, it'd be greater than all trees being catnip, but I just don't see it happening.

NOG said the concept would be eradicated, never again to appear. That means no rape ever after it disappears, so no reinventing.

We're talking about the ideal, about hypothetical situations. Utopia kind of fun. If you already fathom such ideas as there never being premeditated, malicious rape, you may as well fathom that people won't make mistakes. I would imagine it would take more to remove heaps of ill will than to clear some stuff up and prevent misunderstandings.

Oh, and there can't be rape by misunderstanding. Maybe the victim will be raped but the "offender" will not be a rapist. And it's hard to imagine a situation in which there really is a misunderstanding. When I think of it, the kind of signals that would actually clear him of blame would make it hard to imagine rape taking place on the victim's side, anyway. In my book, no means no but it needs to be a no in the first place. If you give no time or opportunity to say no, you take a gamble.

Yeah, the post I made before I was in a hurry to go somewhere. Fel has got pretty much the gist of my meaning. You have to look at 'why' people rape others and that would have to be the sexual hunger felt by people. Now the only way I can see to prevent rape would be if there was no sexual hunger, but without sexual hunger then I imagine males would suddenly lose a massive motivational factor in their lives.

Rape, in some respects, is a good thing. Oh, it's certainly horrible if it happens to somebody but the fact that there is such a thing as rape shows that the human psyche has a strong ambition to reproduce.

I guess the other way to make rape a thing of the past would be if sex was suddenly no longer enjoyable for either party.

Either way I find it incredibly unnatural for humans to not be able to do something due to a mental roadblock. Making something impossible for a human to do, not physically, but mentally, is just something I'll never understand.

I geuss my post was a little short on content, so let me add to it. I would say that there are several types of Rape:

1)The rapist stalks someone and violently overtakes them and forces sex on them.

2)The rapist uses drugs and/or alcohol to acheive a non-resistant state in their victim, and then they force sex on them.

3)Then there is the back seat setup where one party says no and the other does it anyways.

4)Then there is statutory rape(at least here in the US) which is consentual sex between an adult(18 years or older) and someone under the age of 17 and one day old (as it is defined in New York State penal law).

When I read this thread and posted I was thinking of the first, because that is what happened to my friend. When I was in Criminal Justice classes they taught us that this is about the violence and not the sex. Obviously sex is involved, wether it be in actual penile penetration, or foreign body penatration. It definately messes up the victim's mental perception of sex, and they often never have a fulfilling sexual life again. I certainly never meant to trivialize the sexual trauma done during rape. I only meant that violence is the true essence of the crime. Lets face it, if a guy is just super horny there is always someone to find to have sex with, if nothing else there are prostitutes.

Almost all violent rapists escalate to more violent crimes, and many go on to murder. And no I didn't get this from watching CSI:.

Rape, in some respects, is a good thing. Oh, it's certainly horrible if it happens to somebody but the fact that there is such a thing as rape shows that the human psyche has a strong ambition to reproduce.I don't think I'd be able to say something like that... I think it is more of a, "sex feels good" thing than a "lets plant my semen everywhere and fill the earth with little [CHARNAME]"

Same result either way, Chicken.

Suppose the majority of people in a society enjoy the spectacle of a public torture and killing once in a while. Although the victim may suffer, it seems that with a sufficiently large enough audience the amount of pleasure produced by this event would make it 'right' according to the Utilitarian. Should such a society be allowed to torture innocent people for the greater 'good'?

Jim the travelling botanist stumbles upon a strange tribe engaged in a ritual where 20 people are going to be killed. Jim is given the option of killing one of the people himself, and if he does so, the other 19 will be saved. Should Jim kill one to save nineteen? Would he be justified in walking away? What would you do?

Just a couple of questions my philosophy tutors hit my tutorial group with in the first year Ethics and Morality course...

Rape, in some respects, is a good thing. Oh, it's certainly horrible if it happens to somebody but the fact that there is such a thing as rape shows that the human psyche has a strong ambition to reproduce. Rape is in fact rarely about reproduction or even sexual satisfaction but more about the satisfaction of being able to dominate and humiliate another person. The sexual act is a means, not an end, to most rapists.

Back on topic: The only reason there can be for using force against (including killing) another person is self-defense or defense of others. And even in that case, the only person you can use force against is the criminal. For example, if Ann is held hostage by a terrorist demanding the death of Bob, murdering Bob without his permission in order to save Ann is a violation of Bob's rights. Claiming that Bob's death may somehow prevent rape, murder, or measles, or whatever for eternity doesn't make it right.

@Brallrock:

A rapist may have a variety of reasons to stalk a victim. Humiliation will be one of them, sexual gratification will be another. While some of those sickos will chase the girl down to get off on her feeling of powerlessness and fear, some will just want to have sex with that specific girl.

I suppose in ghetto sceneries or in certain patological extended families or societies, rape might be aimed at humiliation. This would be the case with retributory rape in tribal cultures (raping the relative of a rapist, for instance), but I suppose only a tight minority of stalking cases would fall under the silent vendetta category. The majority will be done by perverts who get off on fear and powerlessness on the part of the victim. Some will be fans of rough, non-consensual sex (cf. people who enjoy manhunt for the thrill of it). In all cases except the vendetta scenario, sexual gratification will be sought and obtain. Even in the vendetta scenerio, sexual gratification is a part. Most rape incidents are "traditional" vaginal penetration with a penis, which is impossible without erection, which is impossible without sexual excitement. All in all, sex is always there. Not merely on the victim's side (which you agree is always there), but also on the offender's.

In fact, most guys who want a certain girl badly and won't take a no, will pursue the stalking scenario at least to some extent. If only to minimise the risk of being seen. Kidnapping with subsequent rape is a similar situation.

Scenario #2 is instinctly associated with just getting sex, but in fact, there is more room for humiliation goals in it than in #1. Just think of kids doing that and taking photos.

Scenario #3 is tricky. If I were to read it directly, I would have to assume the victim's resistance is limited to saying no and the offender doesn't apply additional measures of coercion apart from "just" doing it. I don't believe this is a frequent situation; in fact, I believe it's marginal. Perhaps you mean date rape without the use of drugs or alcohol? If yes, then you will need to make another category for rape by stranger without stalking. In other words, it's not true that rape by force is either by a stalker or a willingly chosen companion.

Situation #4 reeks of defective consent, but it's not the same as rape. I have a problem with the "statutory rape" denominator employed by the American law. In fact, I think it doesn't do justice to real rape victims, while it also blurs the distinction between sex with minors and rape on minors. I just hope you don't get more years of prison for consensual sex with a minor than for raping an adult.

Well, if it happened to your friend, you surely know more about the situation first-hand than I possibly can from my speculations. Besides, your environment is different from mine. I still find it hard to envision, however, that the sexual aspect should be negligible. Subservient to the urge to humiliate someone (which is a sexual one, anyway, I guess), but still.

As for superhorny guys, I think you haven't taken into consideration those guys who just can't have it with a different girl from the one who happens not to be willing. If they very specifically lust for that specific woman, they won't suffice with a brothel visit. This was probably the most popular category of rape after abuse by victorious soldiers or liege lords (and in the latter case, there's no preclusion of the same effect). You could argue it's more about winning, achieving the goal, than about sex, but sex is the primary motivation, anyway.

But I guess we're drifting off topic with this rape discussion.

@Montresor: Sexual act is always a means. Of achieving this or that kind of satisfaction (e.g. the satisfaction from a lawful intercourse, or the spurious satisfaction achieved from rape), of procuring children, whatever. Even kids who seem to do it for its own sake in fact do it for publicity or to feel more confident or open a new stage in life. Rape is not so much different in this respect.

Ok, quite trying to define rape, I'll do it for you. Any sexual act where one partner is unwilling or does not consent is rape. If you want a logical way it would work, pretend it gets hard-wired into the human brain to loose all sexual desire if the other partner doesn't express consent (though this doesn't need to be verbal). Because it is in the human brain, it doesn't matter if you force the person to say 'yes', you still know it isn't consent. As for foreign objects, lets say it also gets hardwired that someone seeking to punish, humiliate, or otherwise dominate another person would never think to use sexual processes to do it.

I never thought I'd have to get so nitty-gritty on this.

How many lives would you sacrifice to permanently and totally rid the human soul of one horror (rape, murder, sexual abuse, etc.)? Sorry for being a complete thicko, as usual, but I still don't understand this question. I wouldn't kill anybody to make someone's "soul" (not sure what that is exactly either) forget about a horror.

I would not sacrifice any human to erase any or all 'sins'. God already did so when he sacrifised His son. I just have to wait a while and all will be great.
Patience, lads.. Patience.

Edit:
Sorry, I see this was not the intention of this thread.
Perhaps I would act like the bad guy in se7en (I doubt that). I think I would not sacrifice anyone, because I am not the person who considers himself to allowed to do so.
I would like to see these horrors gone forever,of course. I have the urge to make this world a better place, but not like this. Also I'm quite sure that all will be fine one day.

[ October 19, 2006, 21:35: Message edited by: Master of Nuhn ]

Sorry for getting off topic, I rarely post in this forum and the topic hit home.

Back to the question, I would gladly sacrafice every rapist in the world if it would "un-hard wire" peoples brains for it. I would not sacrafice any innocents. I would give up anything, and stop at nothing to protect the purity of my daughters.

I would not do this. To start, it's not possible! The human mind is hardwired for misery, pain and cruelty. If it were possible, no. I will not tinker with humanity. I will not eliminate heroes. Heroes are those who know their choices and choose the right thing. What are humans without choice?

I wouldn't sacrifice anyone, because as people have said (most recently Master of Nuhn) it isn;t our right to sacrifce others. However, I'd like to think I'd volunteer to be sacrificed if such a thing were garunteed.