Moral Relativism "Exercise:" Rape, Incest, and Survival


#1

I’m not sure how to spell out the scenario nicely, so please bear with me.

**A meteor strikes Earth, killing everyone on the planet, except two people: a father and his 13-year old biological daughter.

The father, wanting to continue the survival of mankind, wants to have sex with his daughter. His daughter refuses. The father attempts to rape her, despite her objection.**

Is there a way I can logically prove that the father is doing an intrinsically evil act to a moral relativist?

Are there any assumed premises I missed, which I should be aware of?


#2

Well, for a start, there isn't enough genetic diversity present to actually continue the human race.


#3

I don’t think the scenario is relevant. You can’t prove anything is intrinsically evil to a moral relativist. They deny objective truth.


#4

[quote="Jade_Tiger, post:2, topic:327447"]
Well, for a start, there isn't enough genetic diversity present to actually continue the human race.

[/quote]

Adam/Eve?

[quote="1ke, post:3, topic:327447"]
I don't think the scenario is relevant. You can't prove anything is intrinsically evil to a moral relativist. They deny objective truth.

[/quote]

So if I said the moral relativist is now in the position of the daughter, it wouldn't make a dent?


#5

[quote="Jade_Tiger, post:2, topic:327447"]
Well, for a start, there isn't enough genetic diversity present to actually continue the human race.

[/quote]

Actually, assuming they were both relatively healthy and did not possess serious heritable defects, it would theoretically be possible to continue the human race. In the livestock world we sometimes have to do what we call "conservation breedings" or "rescue breedings", in order to save critically endangered breeds from extinction. This involves very carefully planned matings with considerable inbreeding involved. It's possible to create five fairly distinct lines from just one original ram and two or three original ewes.

Incest (inbreeding in the animal world) is a very serious sin for humans, but an extremely useful tool in animal breeding. It concentrates both the good and the bad- the key is to to practice extensive selection and cull anything with defects. This cannot be done to people. In fact, nearly all breeds of animals were developed with at least a moderate degree of inbreeding.

However, humans usually have a lot of genetic diversity, so it would likely work for awhile, at least, without any "selection" at all.

Of course, none of this means anything because it is WRONG in people.


#6

He is using his power against her will. Simple.

That is why Mary was asked.


#7

Question. Is the father of this scenario a moral relativist?


#8

Has someone argued to you that this hypothetical rape is NOT wrong? o.O


#9

I think in this case they would say the end justifies the means. The evil act was done for the “greater good.” This line of thinking has led to all sorts of trouble.


#10

Ask the moral relativist why they think the human race would need to procreate at that point?

Why would there be a duty to procreate?

Also would the man be the Pope?


#11

[quote="Darryl_B, post:7, topic:327447"]
Question. Is the father of this scenario a moral relativist?

[/quote]

I guess he is, but does it matter? :hmmm:

[quote="Rhubarb, post:8, topic:327447"]
Has someone argued to you that this hypothetical rape is NOT wrong? o.O

[/quote]

Saw something like it in a debate, though it was a "scenario" that existed in a different form. I can try to dreg it up on youtube if you like, and I can remember it.

[quote="stephe1987, post:9, topic:327447"]
I think in this case they would say the end justifies the means. The evil act was done for the "greater good."

[/quote]

Is the "greater good" the survival of humanity? Would the moral relativist be assuming the "survival of humanity" is an absolute good?

[quote="russet1, post:10, topic:327447"]
Ask the moral relativist why they think the human race would need to procreate at that point?

Why would there be a duty to procreate?

[/quote]

So this forces the moral relativist to concede rape is wrong, hence a moral absolute, correct?

I feel like there's a hole, I'm just not sure what it is yet :hmmm:


#12

oh wow exercise time, awesome.

So you have to choose to: shoot , stab, or drown . a random stranger, your friend, or your beloved dog; who do you choose to do what to; and the scenerio is a horde of zombies are approaching and you have to survive to bring much needed medical supplies to the neighboring camp where a mother and her children have a terrible disease that you carry not only the antidote to, but the said medical supplies that the rest of the camp needs.


#13

[quote="buffalo, post:6, topic:327447"]
He is using his power against her will. Simple.

That is why Mary was asked.

[/quote]

:thumbsup:


#14

God will probably allow a temporary lift on the ban against incest, so that humanity may live on. I read a passage from St. Augustine once where he was thinking that God allowed Cain and Seth to marry their sisters so the race wouldn't die out. But then God banned the practice later when it was no longer necessary.


#15

[quote="PumpkinBunny, post:14, topic:327447"]
God will probably allow a temporary lift on the ban against incest, so that humanity may live on. I read a passage from St. Augustine once where he was thinking that God allowed Cain and Seth to marry their sisters so the race wouldn't die out. But then God banned the practice later when it was no longer necessary.

[/quote]

Yes, it was allowed in the collateral line but never parent to child. It is intrinsically evil parent to child, but not brother and sister.


#16

Surely there are many moral codes that could be considered to include "moral relativism" in some form and which would differ in their assessment of this 'exercise.'

In other words, you have not given enough information to answer the question.


#17

[quote="minion, post:1, topic:327447"]
I'm not sure how to spell out the scenario nicely, so please bear with me.

**A meteor strikes Earth, killing everyone on the planet, except two people: a father and his 13-year old biological daughter.

The father, wanting to continue the survival of mankind, wants to have sex with his daughter. His daughter refuses. The father attempts to rape her, despite her objection.**

Is there a way I can logically prove that the father is doing an intrinsically evil act to a moral relativist?

Are there any assumed premises I missed, which I should be aware of?

[/quote]

This has to be the most asanine "scenario" I've ever heard, and not worthy of a response.


#18

[quote="kimhouli, post:17, topic:327447"]
This has to be the most asanine "scenario" I've ever heard, and not worthy of a response.

[/quote]

So why respond? :confused:

Especially with a response that consists solely of abuse and spelling mistakes?


#19

This is supposed to be a Catholic-Answers forum, is it not? I think that makes this forum a little less worthy of hypotheticals, such as the one to which I responded. And that was the reason for my response. Please excuse my misspellings--I think you get the drift, "Dr." Taffy.


#20

[quote="minion, post:1, topic:327447"]
Is there a way I can logically prove that ______ is doing an intrinsically evil act to a moral relativist?

[/quote]

By definition, moral relativists don't believe in intrinsic evil, so unless your moral relativist isn't actually a moral relativist, it is impossible to prove anything is intrinsically evil to him.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.