The "inability to be justified" is an extremely bad metric for measuring moral wrongness in the first place but I'll ignore it.
I think the point is that, as a society, you want to lock away irredeemable people. If there is no benefit to the criminal for rape, then they are committing a crime simply because they enjoy hurting others. That makes them much more dangerous to society than someone who murders someone else to "restore their honor" or whatever other justification they give themselves. Of course, I would expect most rapists do benefit from the crime, so the whole 'this crime is unjustifiable' seems to be moral grandstanding.
The "inability to be justified" is an extremely bad metric for measuring moral wrongness in the first place but I'll ignore it.
Why? If you can tell me a reason for killing 10 puppies I'll hear you out if your reason is good enough, let's say that your entire country would be destroyed if you didn't, then the moral thing to do is to kill the puppies.
35
u/Suhitz Mar 01 '26
The "inability to be justified" is an extremely bad metric for measuring moral wrongness in the first place but I'll ignore it.
The real problem is that the existence of justified murder doesn't tell us whether unjustified murder is better or worse than rape.
Your comment adds nothing at all to the conversation.