`let's say you're part of society A & your group has a rampant shortage of women, which will lead to the death of your group due to lack of procreation, rape is the only option to survive. Given that morality is subjective & you are part of this group, is it morally right for you to abduct & rape the women of neighboring tribes to survive?`

I say, if your hypothetical has no genuine application, the hypothetical is meaningless and warrants no response

Also, it hinges upon a set selection of answers

Which is a dishonest tactic, at least in this case

>the only option to procreate is to rape your neighboring tribe

Such retarded bullshit

Someone let me know if and how I am wrong, because this seemed contentious earlier

"if God told you to molest a child, would you do it?"

is about as nonsensical as this question

This was the response I should have given earlier

it's also frivolous for another reason, you would expect it to be wrong when your opponents gives a "yes" answer, but, when the same question is asked towards you, with God giving these instructions (to rape another tribe), you yourself would say yes (obviously God wouldn't do that, we're playing in the realm of this retarded hypothetical)

So then, how does this reflect poorly on me?

It's also the idea of 1-0 absolutes, obviously there are greater virtues that outweight others, disobeying one to follow another isn't a good this, it's a less bad thing.

it's wrong when you think that I would do it, but not for you?

This question was just dunb

I'm thinking through ways it could be considered a valid question and there are none

If God told him to commit a cardinal sin he would do it, because piety is a higher virtue than being unsinful

Yeah

This hypothetical is meant to strip the focus down to one virtue

or to the underlying one

There's so many things wrong with it

I could go on all night

Do so

The only possible situation this could arise in is in a failed tribe

which is obvious

a situation that is not only uncommon (because the only "way to survive is rape")

but it's pretty common to see your objective morality go right out the fucking window when you realize things are going to end

A tribe with some form of objective morality wouldn't hold up well either in this scenario

Anyways, that last point is a lot less hard hitting than the others

The other criticisms I have would not be my go-to ones

This would be my main one, to be quite honest

the answer would have to be "yes" or "God wouldn't do that" (which is the same as me saying "This would never happen")

Argue with him claiming that BECAUSE God wouldn't do that he has a moral stand now, just to cover it all

even if he claims God wouldn't do that, what's the difference between that claim and my claim of "This is an unrealistic scenario"?

Because with God it's a definitive

Pretty sure your only option to survive is going to definitively not be to rape the nearest tribe....

you'd have to be in an extremely isolated area

there'd have to be some reason you have a shortage of women

Food being the most likely cause

At that point, a lack of women isn't your real problem

Chemicals in the water the turn the womb gay