JWs: more covering up of child sex abuse

Originally posted by @dj2becker
'Subjective' means based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Your moral compass is subjective in the same way as mine is. It creates opinions about the morality of actions you take based on your character and on information you have absorbed from your environment and your experiences throughout your life.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
It means there is no factual basis to morality and it is merely a matter of personal preference and that is hardly a basis for moral obligation.

Morality is all about personal preferences and choices when faced with decisions and dilemmas of a moral nature.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
'Subjective' means based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. It means there is no factual basis to morality and it is merely a matter of personal preferencedecisionand that is hardly a basis for moral obligation. Which means you don't have a leg to stand on.

Every moral decision has a "factual basis". The decisions that our moral compasses help us to make are reactions to facts.

FMF: What is your stance regarding the protection of women and girls from a rapist?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I'm all for it.

What do you see as the "factual basis" of this stance of yours?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
It means there is no factual basis to morality and it is merely a matter of personal preference and that is hardly a basis for moral obligation.

Factual basis (assuming your story is true):

Your sister was raped by her counsellor.

Nobody reported it to the authorities.

He would maybe rape again.

We agree rape is wrong. It's also illegal and a very serious crime.

We agree that women and children should be protected from the possibility of being raped.

That's the "factual basis" with regard to this case we have been discussing.

Something to consider: How would you prove rape in a court of law if it's one person's word against another? Is it worth it for the victim to relive all the trauma and go through all of the cross examinations if at the end of all of it, the evidence is inconclusive and the rapist gets to walk free?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Something to consider: How would you prove rape in a court of law if it's one person's word against another? Is it worth it for the victim to relive all the trauma and go through all of the cross examinations if at the end of all of it, the evidence is inconclusive and the rapist gets to walk free?

There is never any guarantee that the morally sound course of action is going to be easy or that it will not require courage.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Something to consider: How would you prove rape in a court of law if it's one person's word against another? Is it worth it for the victim to relive all the trauma and go through all of the cross examinations if at the end of all of it, the evidence is inconclusive and the rapist gets to walk free?

Never mind what your parent did or didn't do. What would you have done if you had been in your parents' shoes and what would have been your moral justification?

Originally posted by @fmf
There is never any guarantee that the morally sound course of action is going to be easy or that it will not require courage.

If FMF is arguing that the 'morally sound' course of action here only represents his own opinions and feelings and not the actual true course of action that everyone aught to take, FMFs argument is moot. If however FMF is arguing that the course of action that he is suggesting is the actual true course of action that everyone aught to take (and has good reasons to back them up) then maybe people will start to listen to what he has to say.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If FMF is arguing here that the 'morally sound' course of action here only represents his own opinions and feelings and not the actual true course of action that everyone aught to take, FMFs argument is moot. If however FMF is arguing that the course of action that he is suggesting is the actual true course of action that everyone aught to take (and has good reasons to back them up) then maybe people will start to listen to what he has to say.

Who are you talking to?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Who are you talking to?

Anyone that has an ear to hear.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If FMF is arguing that the 'morally sound' course of action here only represents his own opinions and feelings and not the actual true course of action that everyone aught to take, FMFs argument is moot. If however FMF is arguing that the course of action that he is suggesting is the actual true course of action that everyone aught to take (and has good reasons to back them up) then maybe people will start to listen to what he has to say.

You are free to ignore the moral arguments made by others because morality is subjective: both yours and mine. It's a pity you have not made a moral argument about whether to alert other people who might get raped. Maybe your argument would have been persuasive. But, on this issue, you seem utterly lost. What a pity you used what you claim happened to your sister in such a tawdry way twice: first when you suddenly came to robbie carrobie's aid when he was defending the cover up of sex abuse by the JWs, and now you've used it again for some wishy washy posturing and sophistry.

Originally posted by @fmf
There is never any guarantee that the morally sound course of action is going to be easy or that it will not require courage.

If you were a lawyer and the victim was your client and you knew there was not enough evidence to prosecute the rapist, would it be morally sound advice from you to tell her to go ahead and humiliate herself and have the possibility of her being labelled a liar by the public if the rapist is declared not guilty due to a lack of incriminating evidence?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you were a lawyer and the victim was your client and you knew there was not enough evidence to prosecute the rapist, would it be morally sounds advice from you to tell her to tell her to go ahead and humiliate herself and have the possibility of her being labelled a liar by the public if the rapist is declared not guilty?

The answer to this is the same as the post you are replying to. The perils of doing the morally sound thing is not the issue.

Originally posted by @fmf
The answer to this is the same as the post you are replying to. The perils of doing the morally sound thing is not the issue.

How on earth would it be morally sound to advise someone to suffer public humiliation if you knew there was absolutely no chance of the rapist being incriminated due to a lack of evidence?