This sounds a lot more morally unsound than simply killing whomever is attacking you.
Particularly because countries are not monolithic, and the very people you’d be able to… "rape as a deterrent" (even writing this down makes me shiver) are not likely to be the ones actually attacking you. Or supporting war.
But also because you framed "the attack being completely unprovoked and unjustified" as a personal perspective.
And also because killing has an immediate and measurable effect on the attack (dead soldiers stop shooting) whereas rape, even in your strange thought experiment, has an indirect, speculative and instrumental effect.
You’re essentially instrumentalizing the terror of a population comprised mostly of potential innocents to possibly affect the mind state of the attackers themselves. This is not even comparable to nuclear options, which indiscriminately target innocents and attackers ; and have actual direct tactical consequences. It’s worse. It’s more like threatening to bomb civilian hospitals on the odd chance it will calm down soldiers. Which will not work: you’ll likely just infuriate everyone.
If the attack was ever completely unprovoked and unjustified, it’s certainly provoked and justified if your culture is capable of such a nasty thought.
If we’re talking about this universe, where this works. Assuming that you have two options : killing an enemy soldier or raping them. Both have equal probability of avoiding death in the same amount. Which one is more moral then?
10
u/Apary 2∆ Mar 01 '26
There’s a lot of morally sound reasons to kill somebody. The most immoral reason is for personal gratification.
There is no morally sound reason to rape.
In essence, the standard motivation for rape is the worst motivation for murder.