I know nothing of Bentham, but from what you described I think his philosophy holds true even without your explanation of a basic right being "not to be violently raped." In the case of a rape, there are more desires to consider than simply that of the rapist and that of the victim. When someone is raped, for example, a ripple effect is caused which will inevitably bring some sort of pain to everyone close to the victim, whereas no one (generally) will benefit from a rapist fulfilling his desire besides himself.
Or we could even assume that the victim has no relations all, and Bentham would still stand (at least in the case of rape), for the simple reason that the rapist's desire and the victim's desire to not be raped do not cancel out. It's far, far, far more traumatic for the victim to be raped than it would be for the rapist to not rape someone.
Consider this potential situation: the rapist and the person being raped are the only two people present. It's on a deserted island. There is no ripple effect to factor in. And also consider that a rapist could be mentally twisted to the point where not having sex with that girl is causing him tremendous anguish. My point is that without a higher moral standard present, it's all about pleasure, and people can derive pleasure from some sick and violent things. Would you assert that there are no right and wrong pleasures, then?
Or try on for size this great scenario: the person being raped isn't well-liked in her community because, say, she's of a different ethnicity than most. The hypothetical "ripple effect" wouldn't work in the way you imagined, if it would work at all. Is rape all right, then, so long as it's supported by the community (and certainly the votes of many will take precedence over the desire of one strong vote)?
Apply the same concept to segregation, sexism, and other such things. Without a higher moral standard, there are no universal human rights.
So I've been thinking about it for a long time.ralliumOctober 7 2004, 00:11:44 UTC
It's strange how I haven't yet found a philosopher I feel had the "right idea." I've read/heard about lots of the greats--Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Kant, and Bentham, among others--but they all seem to offer something that just turns me off from them.I like this about you. You do your homework and you find things you like that another philospher has said, but you find some flaws that they possibly overlooked
( ... )
Re: So I've been thinking about it for a long time.aviolentrageOctober 7 2004, 00:59:37 UTC
I think you definitely have a point there: philosophy seeks to abstract--or generalize--a lot of really complicated empirical evidence, and as philosophers are all people who are fallible by nature, there's little chance that they can neatly and rationally compact all the elements of what it means to exist into an understandable set of moral guidelines. I don't know that I'd say it's impossible to have a rationally sound philosophy--I'm not studied or sharp enough to really dissect and analyze the logic of some difficult stuff like Plato--but it seems as though it'd definitely be a challenge, and it's likely a path that few--if any--philosophers have successfully navigated
( ... )
Comments 6
Or we could even assume that the victim has no relations all, and Bentham would still stand (at least in the case of rape), for the simple reason that the rapist's desire and the victim's desire to not be raped do not cancel out. It's far, far, far more traumatic for the victim to be raped than it would be for the rapist to not rape someone.
Reply
Reply
Apply the same concept to segregation, sexism, and other such things. Without a higher moral standard, there are no universal human rights.
Reply
You make a very good point, though.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment