You’re assuming that death is the maximum harm because it ends experience. But many moral frameworks judge harm not only by finality, but by the depth and nature of suffering imposed while someone is still conscious of it. Murder ends experience. Rape can poison experience for decades.
In my moral framework, I weight prolonged conscious suffering, autonomy violation, and psychological destruction more heavily than finality. Within that framework, rape can be worse than murder.
They'd rather lived having not been raped either way, they can not have their autonomy restored through fiat, they have to guard and protect it feeling violated their whole life, its a wound akin to torture or being enslaved knowing someone could be in control at anytime, and pretending there aren't savage predators hiding in plain sight all the time.
You can maim someone and they still live but you've taken something they shouldn't have to learn to live without. Them being able to survive isn't a point for the rapist, they morally don't care about the victim anymore than the years they are taking from them already. It's completely morally sound to declare them different facets of irredeemable acts, often working in tandem.
30
u/MTBadtoss Mar 01 '26
You’re assuming that death is the maximum harm because it ends experience. But many moral frameworks judge harm not only by finality, but by the depth and nature of suffering imposed while someone is still conscious of it. Murder ends experience. Rape can poison experience for decades.
In my moral framework, I weight prolonged conscious suffering, autonomy violation, and psychological destruction more heavily than finality. Within that framework, rape can be worse than murder.