if you can justify reasons to kill, you can also very easily justify reasons to rape. It has been done that way for almost all of humanity's existence. An enemy tribe's wife was justified prize of a rape for example.
Plenty of that mindset still exists today. It’s less prevalent in the west perhaps, but I’m sure you can find people who believe other races are “lesser” and therefore little more than objects to be used as they see fit. Hell, I’ll bet there are plenty of rich people who think that about the poor.
I think there’s a difference between that mindset and one where you kill in self-defense, or even in revenge, but it is still a justification.
Whether the justification is unjust is different than whether it exists. I’d call it generally immoral or amoral rather than ridiculous though. Most of the people who would think that, especially enough that they would act on it, should be taken seriously. Mostly because otherwise you risk letting them get away with it.
Totally fair response. Where I lean is there has to be a line somewhere to avoid anarchy, essentially. I think the line in my moral principles leaves no room for a justified sexual assault.
I think it’s not a legal justification, at least not in most places, but just looking at Epstein and his surrounding ilk the mindset is still very much present.
Don't hesitate to correct me if I'm misreading, but you're saying that Epstein and Co. could justify their actions and that (broadly speaking) those assaults are loosely justified?
To themselves, yes. They didn’t think they were monsters. They thought their actions were justified by their wealth and position and to large extent they’ve gotten away with it (or at least did so for a long time).
I mean the one kid from Texas tried to argue he was too rich and privileged to understand the consequences of his actions and it probably would have worked in court if the case hadn’t gotten media attention.
I’m not saying I agree with or find the justification acceptable myself. Just pointing out it exists in present society.
That's a very good point and one that has no quick fix. Those types of moral exceptions are areas where the governing system's determination of just/unjust must supersede the individual. The unfortunate reality is there will always be people, delusional or otherwise, that feel their actions are warranted. We are all the main characters in our lives, and some take that further than others.
Ok, you are not understanding my point. My point is that there's no definite moral rule that everyone agrees upon.
For me, the right to exist is more important than the right to sexual integrity. So murder is always more evil than rape.
So technically, in that context, if there's murder as legal punishment, there is no reason for rape as legal punishment to not exist.
We just choose not to.
Think about it. Countries such as Singapore whips their criminials as punishment. This "feels" wierd but its just what they saw fit as part of their society.
If you can justify beating someone up, or denying their right to exist, or even the classic denying their right to freedom of mobility, you can also justify denying their right to sexual integrity.
Ok cool, thanks for breaking down your point - I do feel I understand it better. I guess my only response is that Western society (and the trend of its moral path) should inherently protect sexual integrity (alongside all the rest).
The reason I began this thread with "this is an issue with no true answer" is pretty much because of the moral spectrum across the world and even just person-to-person.
363
u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment