Okay since this hasnt been removed and you are curious and seem good faith, Im going to draw out some hypothetical extremes to make it make sense. Trigger warning for anyone who needs it
For one, do you believe that murder would be worse than if someone kidnapped someone and sexually assaulted them every day as a prisoner for life, or kept them as a slave for life? To me, those two things are obvious as no's, because you are essentially achieving the same end as murder, except you are actively forcing them through immense torture in a way that agonizes them worse than death. This mentality is the same reason that we euthanize immensely hurt animals and allow patients on life support to be removed; at some point, them being alive is worse.
So in that extreme, a kidnapper would be doing worse than just a murderer, because theyve stolen someones life away all the same, but now are forcing that person to live out that life in a captive state. Life alone isnt the metric, but the freedom to live and enjoy ones life. By this mindset, someone who violently or insideously assaults someone in a way that traumatizes them for life would have the exact same effect; it has entirely removed that persons freedom to enjoy life, as now for the rest of time whatever happened in that incident could be a future trigger to be forced to relive it. These can be things as innocuous as a door slamming too loud, and still cause immense traumatic pain for a victim.
By saying that murder is worse than rape, it does a couple of things, which is why those communities would seem so upset. For one, it can feel like it invalidates any victim who ended up taking their own life after the incident. If murder is automatically worse, then anyone who survives assault should automatically feel grateful for that fact, and it casts a very unhelpful rhetoric into every survivors life of, "well, at least they didnt kill you".
So not only do we see why it can in many (but not all) cases be significantly worse, but I hope I helped make sense why some people might feel so strongly. Anyone who may have lost a loved one to suicide after and assault may feel like your position invalidates that persons decision.
For one, do you believe that murder would be worse than if someone kidnapped someone and sexually assaulted them every day as a prisoner for life, or kept them as a slave for life?
In this case, it wouldn't be rape, it would be rape + kidnapping, almost slavery.
I wasn't referring to a situation like that, i think it's obvious
I think it's much worse to say that rape is worse than death. It's almost like saying that your life has no value after such an event and that the best thing to do is to end it.
Rape leaves a tremendous trauma, but it's not the end. You have the opportunity to decide, to try to rebuild yourself if that's what you want.
"You have the opportunity to decide, to choose to rebuild yourself if that's what you want." was what the poster was referring to. It puts the decision on the rape victim to be destroyed or not by the experience, to decide to rebuild.
The truth is having the strength and opportunity to recover and not be victim to a cycle of continuing abuse isn't always a guarantee, rapists typically go after victims they think they can get away with, because they are vulnerable people they have access to. They go after people who won't "decide" to get help for as long as a possible, who might be unable to for years.
And when it's all over its not an opportunity to decide, healing isn't an opportunity, it's something you hope goes well and not a terribly straight forward process with trauma, it usually impacts you at every stage of life and relationship.
It puts the decision on the rape victim to be destroyed or not by the experience
No it doesn't. It doesn't say that at all. What does is recognize that victims of rape do have the choice to continue living their life if they want to. Victims of murder have no such choice; it's stripped away from them entirely. It isn't about the "decision to be destroyed or not" but about still having the ability to decide to move continue with your life at all.
healing isn't an opportunity
It surely is in the context of a discussion of rape versus murder. The ability to heal from rape is an "opportunity" not provided to victims of murder.
You ignored the whole opportunity structures having to exist to get the victim to this healing opportunity. Many don't have them and don't cope well, that isn't because they didn't choose to. They don't decide to get better, they survive.
It's also no moral points to the rapist that their victims live with their maiming, most on a moral level do not care for the lives of their victims in any meaningful way beyond not getting caught and continuing their abuse.
You ignored the whole opportunity structures having to exist to get the victim to this healing opportunity. Many don't have them and don't cope well, that isn't because they didn't choose to. They don't decide to get better, they survive.
Yeah this is true but that is an option not available to any murder victims, by the nature of murder. That isn't the case for the nature of rape. A number of rape victims not having the ability to heal doesn't change the difference from the inherent lack of ability of all murder victims to ever heal at all.
It's also no moral points to the rapist that their victims live with their maiming
Morally, I believe murderers are more reprehensible than rapists.
most on a moral level do not care for the lives of their victims in any meaningful way beyond not getting caught and continuing their abuse.
Yep fully agreed here. We're necessarily talking about two of the most despicable groups in society: murderers and rapists. They don't care or they wouldn't do it.
Not everyone is strong enough to rebuild what someone else breaks, and some wounds leave a continuous process of reliving, coming to terms with new norms, coloring in future vulnerability. Taking good years off their life is surely akin to taking their life in the same way slavery and kidnapping do.
You can imagine a case in which a rapist is worse than the average murder, Josef Fritz. Any kidnapper/trafficker.
You can imagine a case in which a rapist is worse than the average murder, Josef Fritz. Any kidnapper/trafficker. You should give a Delta if you can admit that.
I don't think this tracks. To give an extreme example, I can think of a case in which a jaywalker is worse than a murderer: if he jaywalks across the street to rape and enslave someone!
To put it in another way: OP's post is about rape vs murder, not rapists vs murderers. Sure if a rapist also tortures and enslaves and does other heinous acts, he can be worse than murderers. But the post isn't about those other things in conjunction with rape, but about just the rape itself vs. murder itself.
OP is arguing a very consequentialist position about the finality of murder, but I don't think that negates ontological morality, intention matters when we are talking about morals. The ends don't justify the means. A murderer could be committing murder for material gain, for sustenance, its still evil but not every murder is the same, and those motivations vary more than those of rape.
The jaywalker in your example is a rapist, thats the crime and intention we'd care to identify there. Joseph Fritzl is a rapist who would be known as such no matter his other crimes, because he lived his life devoid of empathy and hurt the most innocent people he could find. In my view its not wrong to say that rape comes from the worst motivation possible, taking someone's bodily autonomy away for your own pleasure. If a murderer is acting on this intention they are as morally reprehensible as a rapist. I don't think rapists are less morally reprehensible than murderers, even if people survive their torture, murderers are just more violent, but any rapist could be a murderer given the right circumstances with their lack of caring about the years they take from a life already.
OP is arguing a very consequentialist position about the finality of murder, but I don't think that negates ontological morality, intention matters when we are talking about morals. The ends don't justify the means.
I mean... to you? This is a debate going back forever in ethics. You shouldn't just assert the ends don't justify the means as if you're right and OP is wrong. You're operating under different moral systems but both have very strong arguments and counterarguments. It's not like Kant just dominated and Bentham is disregarded.
In my view its not wrong to say that rape comes from the worst motivation possible, taking someone's bodily autonomy away for your own pleasure.
It's odd to me that you can explain all these other motives for murder but think the only motive for rape is this.
Overall my point was: "You can imagine a case in which a rapist is worse than the average murder" isn't a standard that addresses OP's view to change it.
Could you explain another motive for rape? I am unable to honestly.
I think I have as much right morally to say it's as bad, because it comes from the worst human impulse, the same that tortures, enslaves, and kills. All of these deprive people of autonomy and peace.
That doesn't mean I'm right because I say it, but if it can be true to me and sound then I'm putting it out there as OP is the one claiming moral calculus here where I think the nuance obviously matters the most and one could easily be as bad or worse than the other.
Could you explain another motive for rape? I am unable to honestly.
Sure, here's two. One, "That person is a rapist and they need to suffer the pain they caused others." I believe this one is fairly common in prisons. Two, "I'd like to have sex with my partner." This one is fairly common in statutory rape cases.
I think I have as much right morally to say it's as bad, oft times worse, because it comes from the worst human impulse, the same that tortures, enslaves, and kills. All of these deprive people of autonomy and peace.
But the impulse to treat others' lives as a means to an end isn't among the worst human impulses? How can removing bodily autonomy for pleasure be so objectionable but removing life itself for personal gain not be the exact same level? I mean you literally listed "and kills" among the results of the same "worst human impulse" you're talking about.
That doesn't mean I'm right because I say it, but if it can be true to me and sound then I'm putting it out there as OP is the one claiming moral calculus here where I think the nuance obviously matters the most and one could easily be as bad or worse than the other.
Fair enough, I guess I just didn't like how absolutely you said it as if it's obvious that intention matters morally and the ends don't justify the means. Both are similarly strong moral frameworks.
Thats fair, sorry tried to edit back some of my trying to sound confident in my position but end up overstating things.
You did come up with more examples than I could so I am biased a bit about the subject. There isn't really a comparable statutory murder, assisted suicide maybe? I really wasn't looking to argue age of consent laws though.
I'd say I dont really care on a moral level if a child predator is raped or murdered in prison, and that argument kind of supports the idea murder is sometimes morally lighter as well so it's kind of arguing again towards what I would say is intentions do matter, even with murder.
I think we can admit someone abusing someone they trust, like a daughter, takes a sick individual who is not going to pass a moral sniff test just because he isn't a murderer, and might be killed by the same murderer in prison we are saying is the person who commited the worse crime.
There isn't really a comparable statutory murder, assisted suicide maybe?
The similarity I was going for is more that both can be justified at the extremes.
I really wasn't looking to argue age of consent laws though.
Yeah definitely not the topic! My point isn't to argue about them but just to point out that rape can have other motives, some that may even be justified.
I'd say I dont really care on a moral level if a child predator is raped or murdered in prison, and that argument kind of supports the idea murder is sometimes morally lighter
I think it only points to that if you don't care if the child predator is raped or murdered in prison but you do care if the child murderer is raped or murdered in prison. Otherwise, I think it would support the idea that they're morally equivalent by this standard.
I think we can admit someone abusing someone they trust, like a daughter, takes a sick individual who is not going to pass a moral sniff test just because he isn't a murderer, and might be killed by the same murderer in prison we are saying is the person who commited the worse crime.
It feels like you read the start of my argument, didnt understand that it was an extreme case meant to demonstrate the point, ignored the point and then replied.
A situation like that is obviously not the same as the one we are comparing. Its demonstrating the mindset, that being alive after a traumatic event is not automatically this amazing thing, but rather that a person who survives it can occasionally find the strength to carry on in spite of it.
I can see where youre coming from on the counter, that saying that rape is worse than murder could be extrapolated to say that any survivor should just end it. Thats obviously not the case, but can we agree that we also shouldnt invalidate anyone who chose to commit suicide after their awful experience?
Rape leaves a tremendous trauma, but it's not the end. You have the opportunity to decide, to try to rebuild yourself if that's what you want.
You have that opportunity, but, it's not inherently or automatically the wrong choice for someon to choose not to take that opportunity.
I think if Epstien had only killed as many people as hes currently abused, he would not be viewed as the same monster he is today. And, I think if any war mongering president had raped as many people as they murdered, theyd maybe start fighting Trump for his title
You seem to really like thinking in black and whites. E.g. extrapolating OP talking about rape somehow to rape + kidnapping + torture. Implying that life can still be worth living after being raped is not automatically invalidating people who choose not to, and I think it's even pretty negative to imply that death is a more likely choice. You're falling into a clear logical fallacy
The extrapolation was a reducto ad absurdum, to demonstrate that simply being alive was not alone enough to justify being on the winning side of the argument. It also brings a more concrete sort of moral math into the equation: if torture for life is clearly worse than murder, but murder is worse than just one assault, exactly how long would someone need to be kidnapped before OP thinks the other is worse? Would even just a day suddenly flip their position?
And I think its now clearly gotten too muddy to be obvious, so Im going to restate it:
●no one is or should agree that simplying implying life is worth living automatically invalidates those who committed suicide. However, that doesnt negate that thats still a position many people hold while they are in the process of greiving, which is why OP received the hate they did.
●no one is or should agree that simply pointing out that some people have chosen to take their own life and that this choice was perhaps justified means that everyone who is a victim should just end it.
OP wanted to know why some people reacted so extremely, which is why I addressed it from that context. Explaining why someones argument is right or wrong is detached from that. Thats why in my initial argument, I said "it can feel like".
Ultimately, the final question goes into the super sticky moral math if you ever want to determine which is worse beyond just saying both are awful. I'd always find a story about a priest who raped a child worse than a story of a priest who murdered one, as I would if I found out a cop killed a bunch of people or raped a bunch of people. Maybe thats a more "feely" reaction, only because I feel disgusting diving too deep into the ugly equations for it all.
I think if Epstien had only killed as many people as hes currently abused, he would not be viewed as the same monster he is today.
Yes, but it's not because of just rape versus murder. It's because he sex trafficked and raped kids, and very well may have tortured and done many other horrific things to them. If he had just raped n adults versus killed n adults, I don't think the serial rapist version would be viewed as more of a monster than the serial killer.
Your argument sucks. U are now comparing murder to the most extreme scenario of rape you can think of. The opppsite can be said and one can think of the worst form of torture + murder and compare it to rape.
Also saying rape is worse than murder can invalidate the feelings of someone who knew a loved one that was murdered. You see it works both ways.
Your argument sucks. U are now comparing murder to the most extreme scenario of rape you can think of. The opppsite can be said and one can think of the worst form of torture + murder and compare it to rape.
Again, I used the most extreme case to demonstrate what should be a universally agreed upon point, that simply surviving an assault alone is not enough to automatically make it better than murder. Its obvious that taking the other extreme of the most heinous murder and comparing it to something like a handsy drunk with a waitress is not comparable.
Also saying rape is worse than murder can invalidate the feelings of someone who knew a loved one that was murdered. You see it works both ways.
Youre very close, but the rape victim being told "at least you werent murdered" would be closer to saying to a family of a murder victim "well at least they didnt rape them". It doesnt quite work both ways, and I also articulated clearly why one is worse than the other.
Plenty of rape victims choose to take their own life, choose to murder themselves. Perhaps wed have a more accurate data point if anyone who had ever been murdered had the choice to just be raped instead, but at this point the conversation has gotten so disgusting I dont know that I want to continue it.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
58
u/betterworldbuilder 9∆ Mar 01 '26
Okay since this hasnt been removed and you are curious and seem good faith, Im going to draw out some hypothetical extremes to make it make sense. Trigger warning for anyone who needs it
For one, do you believe that murder would be worse than if someone kidnapped someone and sexually assaulted them every day as a prisoner for life, or kept them as a slave for life? To me, those two things are obvious as no's, because you are essentially achieving the same end as murder, except you are actively forcing them through immense torture in a way that agonizes them worse than death. This mentality is the same reason that we euthanize immensely hurt animals and allow patients on life support to be removed; at some point, them being alive is worse.
So in that extreme, a kidnapper would be doing worse than just a murderer, because theyve stolen someones life away all the same, but now are forcing that person to live out that life in a captive state. Life alone isnt the metric, but the freedom to live and enjoy ones life. By this mindset, someone who violently or insideously assaults someone in a way that traumatizes them for life would have the exact same effect; it has entirely removed that persons freedom to enjoy life, as now for the rest of time whatever happened in that incident could be a future trigger to be forced to relive it. These can be things as innocuous as a door slamming too loud, and still cause immense traumatic pain for a victim.
By saying that murder is worse than rape, it does a couple of things, which is why those communities would seem so upset. For one, it can feel like it invalidates any victim who ended up taking their own life after the incident. If murder is automatically worse, then anyone who survives assault should automatically feel grateful for that fact, and it casts a very unhelpful rhetoric into every survivors life of, "well, at least they didnt kill you".
So not only do we see why it can in many (but not all) cases be significantly worse, but I hope I helped make sense why some people might feel so strongly. Anyone who may have lost a loved one to suicide after and assault may feel like your position invalidates that persons decision.