Ethics

1. Is there any situational in which rape is ethically justifiable?

2. To what theory of ethics (e.g., utilitarianism, deontological) do you subscribe?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/ABRN0E_mI0U
youtu.be/rqqjU7zCI10
youtu.be/aaFe3nGhdGI
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

What if you want to have sex with somebody really badly, and they won't let you.

Only if it is absolutely necessary to the survival of the species.

AKA: If you and her were the only 2 humans alive, or the only two with a certain trait that would survive something.

If you conquered their land ?

Women exist solely for the pleasure of men. The only time rape is not ethical is when it distracts them from making a sandwich for another man.

Raping Hitler to stop WW2?

You could argue gangbangs are ethically permissible from a utilitarian standpoint. Provided the perpetrators enjoyment surpasses the misery incurred by the victim.

>You could argue gangbangs are ethically permissible from a utilitarian standpoint.
No because utilitarianism is contingent on philosophical hedonism. "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." Gangbangs satisfy the common hedonist, but they do not exalt mankind.

ethics is a spook
i dont

Deontologist.
Rape is textbook using another as a means to an end, and is therefore not justifiable.

Surely enough of the lower pleasure will overcome the weight of the higher pleasure? Otherwise, hedonistic pleasures are not, in fact, moral considerations, as the mere presence of a higher pleasure completely invalidates their valence.

Any rape is a result of the victim's weakness, but given that I believe not even might makes right, I must admit the concomitant principle of taking murderous vengeance on one's rapist.

Ethics are a spook.

>Surely enough of the lower pleasure will overcome the weight of the higher pleasure?
No because the higher pleasure is a good and does not just benefit one but all.

Then why consider the lower pleasure at all relevant? It follows from the fact that if even the smallest amount of high pleasure can overcome even the greatest base pleasure, then the base pleasure isn't really something which should be taken into consideration (by parsimony, anything superfluous isn't relevant).

I believe that it is ethically justifiable to rape Kuro

It's not rape if she wants it though.

She won't want it by the time I'm done

I think in most pre modern culture. , wife has the duty to have sex with husband if she doesn't want to.

In modern term, in marriage raping is really common and justified at that time.

She wouldn't want you to be done, that is.

If there are only 2 left, then humanity is already extinct.

>I believe that it is ethically justifiable to rape Kuro
Ah, that's actually a real dilemma! If (1) a girl is unconscious and the only way to save her life is to cum inside her, and (2) the girl, being unconscious, is unable to give any indication that she consents to it, then would it be ethically justifiable to do so?

(Kuro needs an outside supply of mana to stay alive, and the only way to get that mana is to receive someone else's bodily fluids.)

Stoicism is the only way.

Early Stoa
>Zeno of Citium
>Chrysippus of Soli

Late Stoa
>Seneca the Younger
>Epictetus
>Marcus Aurelius

Notable Works:

On the Shortness of Life
-Seneca
youtu.be/ABRN0E_mI0U

The Meditations
-Marcus Aurelius
youtu.be/rqqjU7zCI10

The Echiridion of Epictetus
-Epictetus
youtu.be/aaFe3nGhdGI

The Physical Thesis
-Chrysippus

It's fine as long as you ask her family for permission.

>Then why consider the lower pleasure at all relevant?
Because it's evident people will misunderstand utilitarianism and try to use it to justify things like gangrape.

What if they're not around?