Vox Day: Raping Unchaste Women Not So Bad?
If a woman consents to extramarital sex, she is committing a moral offense which is equal to that committed by the man who engages in consensual sex with her, or by the man who, in the absence of such consent, rapes her. Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins. Since only the woman who is not entertaining the possibility of sex with a man and is subsequently raped can truly be considered a wholly innocent victim under this ethic, it is no wonder that women who insist that internal consent is the sole determining factor of a woman's victimization find traditional Western morality to be inherently distasteful.
Vox Day wrote the above (via PZ Myers). Like so many things which Vox Day writes, this vile little rant almost screams out as a sign of sociopathology, but I’d like to focus on an interesting aspect which might go overlooked. As disgustingly immoral as his position is, it’s also logically inconsistent and incoherent.
Allow us to assume, for the sake of argument, the premises that there is no hierarchy of sins and that a women who sins (as with having extramarital sex) is not an innocent victim when raped. Clearly it’s not the case that only sexual sins prevents a woman from being an innocent victim — after all, there is no hierarchy of sins, with sexual sins being worse than others. A woman who blasphemes, lies, shoplifts, or who commits any other transgression cannot be a “wholly innocent victim either.” Since it’s a basic Christian doctrine that we are all sinners, this means that no woman is a wholly innocent victim.
This logical inconsistency suggests that Vox Day isn’t just making excuses for the rape of all non-chaste, non-Christian women; instead, he’s making excuses for the rape of all women, everywhere. The logical incoherence of his position causes it to exhibit moral incoherence as well — hardly surprising, is it? A rationally inconsistent morality isn't likely to be morally coherent.
Ultimately, there is little or no Christian basis for Vox Day’s argument here. The fact that a person is guilty of one sin does not in any way mitigate the sin of someone else who commits a crime against the first person. The concept of “innocent victim” is legal, not Christian, and refers to the crime at issue — previous and unrelated transgressions are simply irrelevant. Finally, it’s debatable whether there is no hierarchy of sins in Christianity. The Catholic Church certainly recognizes such a hierarchy — or does Vox Day deny that Catholics are “real” Christians?
As Myers notes, if there is any good reason for religion it is perhaps that it may keep some sociopaths in check. The downside of this is that people who are only “good” because they are obeying orders from some god also won’t hesitate to kill and maim as soon as they think they have new orders from their god. Thus, I’m not sure that religion makes people like Vox Day less dangerous so much as merely delays and deflects how dangerous they are.
Read More:
Comments
Here’s an old, but amusing example of a clown of reason cutting himself with the razor of logic - Vox Day
On the other hand, you’re right up there with Harris, Dawkins and Dennett in Vox’s clownish pantheon.
“if there is any good reason for religion it is perhaps that it may keep some sociopaths in check. The downside of this is that people who are only “good” because they are obeying orders from some god also won’t hesitate to kill and maim as soon as they think they have new orders from their god. Thus, I’m not sure that religion makes people like Vox Day less dangerous so much as merely delays and deflects how dangerous they are. ”
The problem is when people like Vox use religion to justify their attitudes. In those cases I don’t think it matters whether they’re religious or not; they’ll just find a religion that justifies their views or they’ll twist the religion (like Day in this case) to fit their warped ideas. And when convenient they’ll ignore it all together (like when Vox said he would dump his wife if he wanted more children and she was infertile. Nice guy, huh).
like when Vox said he would dump his wife if he wanted more children and she was infertile. Nice guy, huh
When did he say this exactly? Can you give a link?
Sure. Should have done that originally…
voxday.blogspot.com/2005/10/mailvox-undsoweiter.html
Since a sociopath is “a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience,” a disciple of Jesus would be just the opposite of a sociopath.
If this is the quote you are referring to:
“If having children was my foremost priority, I would certainly replace a post-menopausal or barren wife for one capable of bearing children.” - Vox Day
then I’m beginning to question your reading comprehension skills.
There’s a huge caveat there.
That quote states exactly what I said it did. And it is most definitely not a biblical position for him to take, despite his proclaiming his supposed Christianity.
What exactly is the caveat? That he would dump his wife only if he *really* wanted biological children? What do you think he would say to a woman who said she would only dump her husband if he was infertile?
Where in the bible did God say marital vows may be broken for infertility? So much for “until death do us part” and that “sickness and health” bit contained in the vows. So much for his love for Heather, huh. If he would dump a woman for not providing him with biological children, through no fault of her own, what are other valid reasons in that selfish brain of his? “I love you only for what you can do for me.”
Check your reading comprehension skills.