A hypothetical question concerning rape

[Logic_ill]

Here is a hypothetical scenario. There is a man named Sam. For a long time, Sam has taken a strong interest in a woman named Susan. Sam has asked her out on a few occasions, but she has always declined. Sam is obsessed with the idea of having sex with Susan, and he fantasizes about her very often. One day, fortuitous circumstances cause Sam to come across a genie. The genie says that he will grant Sam three wishes. As his first wish, Sam asks the genie to make Susan want to have sex with him. However, the genie stipulates that he cannot manipulate someone's conscious mind. Sam asks if the genie can manipulate Susan's mind while she is unconscious; the genie affirms that he can. After some thinking, Sam decides that his first wish is to make Susan fall into a deep sleep at a time that will not disrupt her daily schedule. Sam's second wish is be allowed to rape Susan while she is asleep without her awakening to discover what was happening. Sam's third wish is that after he was finished and had left the scene, Susan would awaken and neither she nor anyone else would ever find out what happened and no evidence of the rape would be left behind. The genie then executes Sam's wishes exactly as requested. After this is done, life for both Sam and Susan simply return to normal.

Question: Were Sam's actions immoral? If so, why?

No, I don´t think Sam´s actions were immoral as they were pointless. How could he shrug himself from his sexual obsession for Susan and go back to normal is the question?

[Misty]

In the case of the rape, the rapist has no intention of causing harm. and takes steps to make sure that no harm is felt.

Incredible twist of what harm means.

Rape ALWAYS harms. It is a personal violation of ones control over ones own body. Easing harm by creating lack of knowledge for the victim does not create a victimless victim, nor an innocent rapist. The intention of the rapist is to have his OWN way with someone else's body without their consent. This is why necrophilia is against the law, a dead person cannot give consent.

Sam would risk unknowingly engaging a lying genie, giving the rapist a taste of his own faulty idea of harm!

[Vijaydevani]

Here is a hypothetical scenario. There is a man named Sam. For a long time, Sam has taken a strong interest in a woman named Susan. Sam has asked her out on a few occasions, but she has always declined. Sam is obsessed with the idea of having sex with Susan, and he fantasizes about her very often. One day, fortuitous circumstances cause Sam to come across a genie. The genie says that he will grant Sam three wishes. As his first wish, Sam asks the genie to make Susan want to have sex with him. However, the genie stipulates that he cannot manipulate someone's conscious mind. Sam asks if the genie can manipulate Susan's mind while she is unconscious; the genie affirms that he can. After some thinking, Sam decides that his first wish is to make Susan fall into a deep sleep at a time that will not disrupt her daily schedule. Sam's second wish is be allowed to rape Susan while she is asleep without her awakening to discover what was happening. Sam's third wish is that after he was finished and had left the scene, Susan would awaken and neither she nor anyone else would ever find out what happened and no evidence of the rape would be left behind. The genie then executes Sam's wishes exactly as requested. After this is done, life for both Sam and Susan simply return to normal.

Question: Were Sam's actions immoral? If so, why?

Seriously? you need to ASK? The guy violated another human being and that too an innocent one. This one should not even be debated. And Misty is absolutely right. What is the difference between the above scenario and necrophilia?

[Present awareness]

To ask whether something is moral or immoral, one must first define what moral is. If each person has a different view on what is immoral, then there will always be disagreement upon It. This holds true for good and evil. Like all opposites, there is a grey area which is a bit of both, like the twilight between light and dark.

If Susan goes to sleep at night and wakes up with no knowledge of being violated, then she was not violated from her point of view. I woke up this morning with no knowledge of being violated and so I wasn't violated, from my point of view either. However, Sam is knowingly violating a person's rights for his own personal pleasure, so from his point of view, he is committing a crime, even though he is getting away with it. Perhaps Sam may justify his actions, so as to ease his conscious, since Susan is unaware of his crime, but he is only fooling himself.

The real crime here is wasting three wishes.

[Misty]

To ask whether something is moral or immoral, one must first define what moral is. If each person has a different view on what is immoral, then there will always be disagreement upon It. This holds true for good and evil. Like all opposites, there is a grey area which is a bit of both, like the twilight between light and dark.

If Susan goes to sleep at night and wakes up with no knowledge of being violated, then she was not violated from her point of view. I woke up this morning with no knowledge of being violated and so I wasn't violated, from my point of view either. However, Sam is knowingly violating a person's rights for his own personal pleasure, so from his point of view, he is committing a crime, even though he is getting away with it. Perhaps Sam may justify his actions, so as to ease his conscious, since Susan is unaware of his crime, but he is only fooling himself.

The real crime here is wasting three wishes.

A sleeping person may not remember they were violated, but humans do not know if memory is exclusively held in the brain but also in each cell of the body. Susan could still exhibit harm either in unremembered knowledge, or knowledge of the cells of the body, but not know why. Her harm could be noticeable to others as change in personality or emotions, or she could carry a feeling that something is wrong. However, that is not the issue of the OP, which is people can hurt people as long as the victim does not remember. That makes people vulnerable for all kinds of cruelty. Insane thinking and completely criminal, unloving and self serving.

Comparing wasted wishes to a humans right to maintain control/integrity over ones own body whether in life or death is a wasted joke.

[Present awareness]

Comparing wasted wishes a humans right to maintain control/integrity over ones own body whether in life or death is a wasted joke.

You are, of course right Misty, but it seems comical to me that someone would uses three wishes solely for there own personal sexual gratification, instead of for peace in the world or some other common good. The whole story is a frabrication to justify a personal violation, which is clearly wrong. Perhaps it is wrong for me to make a joke about such a serious topic, but it seems rather ridiculous to me, the extent in which someone may go to justify such a wrong action.

[Grotto19]

The question at its core seems to be revolving around an “if a tree falls” debate. So the question is at its core if the victim has absolutely no conception of the injury done (and in this case no future ramifications) than is it even an injury at all, and if it is not than is the perpetrator exonerated from any ethical guilt.

Since I do side with the tree falling with no one around to hear it still making a sound I would say yes it is still wrong. However this is an ancient philosophical problem and there is no definitive answer, only perspectives.

[Hog Rider]

The question at its core seems to be revolving around an “if a tree falls” debate. So the question is at its core if the victim has absolutely no conception of the injury done (and in this case no future ramifications) than is it even an injury at all, and if it is not than is the perpetrator exonerated from any ethical guilt.

Since I do side with the tree falling with no one around to hear it still making a sound I would say yes it is still wrong. However this is an ancient philosophical problem and there is no definitive answer, only perspectives.

The analogy would make the girl the tree. You can't rape a tree so your analogy is meaningless. But you can cut a tree down and do harm to the environment. Allowing rape under any circumstances is likely to do harm to the rapist.

[Grotto19]

The question at its core seems to be revolving around an “if a tree falls” debate. So the question is at its core if the victim has absolutely no conception of the injury done (and in this case no future ramifications) than is it even an injury at all, and if it is not than is the perpetrator exonerated from any ethical guilt.

Since I do side with the tree falling with no one around to hear it still making a sound I would say yes it is still wrong. However this is an ancient philosophical problem and there is no definitive answer, only perspectives.

The analogy would make the girl the tree. You can't rape a tree so your analogy is meaningless. But you can cut a tree down and do harm to the environment. Allowing rape under any circumstances is likely to do harm to the rapist.

The “tree falls” debate is an ancient philosophical inquiry which begs the question if an event happened but no one is aware of it and it has no consequence does it have any relevant impact. It is relevant to the OP for many reasons which should be apparent (since the foci was on the victim not the rapist). To reduce this philosophical construct to it to simply referring to literally raping a tree is well…remarkable.

[Finvaara]

The initial scenario contains everything we could want with which to crucify Sam, but for the sake of argument, let me go a little bit slower.

Sam used three wishes to momentarily satisfy a desire he felt and then hide that the action ever took place.

1.) Sam's actions were immoral because he knew they were wrong, as evidenced by the lengths he went to in order to prevent discovery.
2.) Sam's actions were immoral because he came into possession of three incredibly valuable resources, and he squandered them without doing anything to advance or improve society in any way.
3.) Sam's actions were immoral because it will forever change the way he sees Susan. Even if the only person he harmed with his actions was himself, he still harmed himself.
4.) Sam's actions were immoral because he took an experience from Susan that she did not decide to give him. She may have wished to participate if given the option. She may have denied him if given the option. Cowardice seems here to be the chiefest of Sam's faults, followed by wastefulness.

Please note that for the purposes of this discussion, I am defining the moral good to be any action with improves society on the large or smaller scale without having negative consequences to the detriment of society such to outweigh the impact therof.

Note that for the purposes of this discussion, I'm defining immoral acts as any act which harms society on the large or smaller scale without having larger positive consequences that would outweigh the impact thereof, and also any action that, through execution, prevents substantial moral acts from being performed.

[Hog Rider]

The “tree falls” debate is an ancient philosophical inquiry which begs the question if an event happened but no one is aware of it and it has no consequence does it have any relevant impact. It is relevant to the OP for many reasons which should be apparent (since the foci was on the victim not the rapist). To reduce this philosophical construct to it to simply referring to literally raping a tree is well…remarkable.

No the tree falls debate does not ask to conclude that a falling tree "has not relevant impact"; it demands us to consdier if no one hears it; "does it even happen"

-- Updated October 15th, 2014, 6:00 pm to add the following --

The initial scenario contains everything we could want with which to crucify Sam, but for the sake of argument, let me go a little bit slower.

Sam used three wishes to momentarily satisfy a desire he felt and then hide that the action ever took place.

1.) Sam's actions were immoral because he knew they were wrong, as evidenced by the lengths he went to in order to prevent discovery.
2.) Sam's actions were immoral because he came into possession of three incredibly valuable resources, and he squandered them without doing anything to advance or improve society in any way.
3.) Sam's actions were immoral because it will forever change the way he sees Susan. Even if the only person he harmed with his actions was himself, he still harmed himself.
4.) Sam's actions were immoral because he took an experience from Susan that she did not decide to give him. She may have wished to participate if given the option. She may have denied him if given the option. Cowardice seems here to be the chiefest of Sam's faults, followed by wastefulness.

Please note that for the purposes of this discussion, I am defining the moral good to be any action with improves society on the large or smaller scale without having negative consequences to the detriment of society such to outweigh the impact therof.

Note that for the purposes of this discussion, I'm defining immoral acts as any act which harms society on the large or smaller scale without having larger positive consequences that would outweigh the impact thereof, and also any action that, through execution, prevents substantial moral acts from being performed.

Crucifixion is not an appropriate penalty for rape.

[Finvaara]

Crucifixion is not an appropriate penalty for rape.

I admit that I was speaking figuratively when I said we could crucify Sam with the evidence provided. My personal preference to punish rapists tends to waffle between castration and mandatory cosmetic surgery to transplant the genitals onto the forehead. Now, this assumes that punishment is an end unto itself, and rehabilitation is not the point of sentencing.

If we instead imagine that rehabilitation is the goal of the justice system, there is a great deal more flux because the target is a bit more slippery. The rapist would need to be analyzed to determine the cause of the behavior, and then training would be required until the former rapist met or exceeded tests in empathy, self confidence, healthy exercise of sexual appetite, a clear knowledge of the distinction between fantasy and reality, and no signs of repeat offense.

Honestly I'm pretty sure you were just joking anyway and knew I was speaking figuratively. Nevertheless, this was another opportunity to let me look at my awesome avatar on the page.

[Grotto19]

No the tree falls debate does not ask to conclude that a falling tree "has not relevant impact"; it demands us to consdier if no one hears it; "does it even happen"

The full question is "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound?" It is quite literally a question of impact (did it make a sound) and not if it happened at all (as evedent by the question being worded in the form of an action happening). The question clearly asks about the impact of the tree falling and does not call into question if it happned.

[Hog Rider]

No the tree falls debate does not ask to conclude that a falling tree "has not relevant impact"; it demands us to consdier if no one hears it; "does it even happen"

The full question is "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound?" It is quite literally a question of impact (did it make a sound) and not if it happened at all (as evedent by the question being worded in the form of an action happening). The question clearly asks about the impact of the tree falling and does not call into question if it happned.

That is what is implied; that unobserved things do not happen. In any event, the analogy does not fit with the rape story.

[Present awareness]

(Nested quote removed.)


The full question is "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound?" It is quite literally a question of impact (did it make a sound) and not if it happened at all (as evedent by the question being worded in the form of an action happening). The question clearly asks about the impact of the tree falling and does not call into question if it happned.

That is what is implied; that unobserved things do not happen. In any event, the analogy does not fit with the rape story.

I think the analogy fits in very well with the story. In the story, the girl had no knowledge of the rape, and no side effects, from her point of view, the rape did not even happen. So, just like the tree falling in the forest, if there's no one there to witness it, it's as if it didn't happen.