Absolutism vs Relativism

[sgtmac_46]

One cannot accept that everything is equally right or nothing is wrong because one cannot remove themselves from the context of the culture. As I said above, a society has consequences for those who do not follow the norms.

Again, this is a mistake to believe that one cannot determine right from wrong beyond cultural context. Again, this leads to the intellectual error that says that all cultures are equal. Even though one cannot remove themselves from the context of society, one can, from an intellectual level, examine that which serves social quality versus biological, for example.

The idea that one adaptation is higher or lower in the sense that one idea is more or less moral has no basis. However, I would agree that certain behaviors are better adapted to current environmental conditions then others. Slavery, for instance, is no longer an advantage for modern nations and thus it becomes wrong. This is the same with womens rights, as societies modernize, the distiction between male and female roles diminish. Societies that treat everyone equally now have a greater advantage because they've increased the number of productive entities within it.

Yes, because they have achieved greater social quality. The more complex societies get, the more they embrace ideology over social groups. That we even have nations, outside of familial clans, is evidence of greater social quality.

Pure moral relativism does not fully describe what actually happens. However, if we say that morality is relative to the environment or to other cultural influences, then we are more accurately describing what is happening in nature. The bottom line is that there is no pure absolute morality and there is no completely random relative morality. It has to come from somewhere...

Again, you make a mistake. It does come from somewhere. It is a quality present in human societies. Name one human society where there are no laws or social rules, even if they somtimes very. I'll save you time, you can't. Why? Because social rules are an inherent quality of ALL societies. Why are rules necessary? To overcome biological quality of the individual. Those who have excessive biological quality must either yield to the group, die, be imprisoned, or (in some primitive groups) fight to the top position. But, even in those societies, there is only one top position. As time goes by, even those socieities decide it is advantageous to develop a system of advancement more based on ritual than combat.

What's more, the more advanced a society gets, the more it creates complex rules and social controls for those who exhibit excessive biological quality.

So, we can say that one universial quality of ALL societies are social rules. There are more, but this is enough to make my point. If we accept that obvious truth, we acknowledge that there is a foundation for a universal system of morality, not based on divine truths, but based on the natural progression of human societies.

 

[Floating Egg]

7starmantis,

The debate over how to define culture is ongoing within the Anthropological community. John H. Bodly, in his is textbook Cultural Anthropology, defines culture in the following way:

"Culture involves at least three components: what people think, what they do, and the material products they produce. Thus, mental processes, beliefs, knowledge, and values are parts of culture. Some anthropologists would define culture entirely as mental rules guiding behavior, although often wide divergence exists between the acknowledged rules for correct behavior and what people actually do. Consequently, some researchers pay most attention to human behavior and its material products. Culture also has several properties: it is shared, learned, symbolic, transmitted cross-generationally, adaptive, and integrated."

In the second last paragraph of your first post, you stated that rape is wrong because it violates the rights of human beings. In what context is the violation of rights incorrect? Do you view rights as something that's inherent or granted?

You state that "Normals do not define right or wrong, thats insanity," which is one of your many Appeals to Ridicule. It would be more helpful if you actually refuted the claims being made using reasonable methods, but instead, you go on to ask "So, your accepting of rape in these cultures?" This line of reasoning continues with an apparent attack on relativism. You wrote "Thats the problem with relativism, you have to align yourself with whoever is winning to stay right," which is one of the key strawmans in your argument. You then follow with "I say you can be right regardless of who is in control or what the norms are for raping women," but you have yet to provide reasons for your position. Your entire argument up to this point hinges on your spurious critique of moral relativism.

You've employed a False Dilemma by stating that raping a person is either wrong or right. Now, rape may not be desirable, but you're not discussing the principle of utility. The problem, as I see it, is your reliance on the words right and wrong to determine what humans ought to do, and this is one of the major sources of conflict in this thread.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The whole issue of moral relativism is bogus. We can argue that from a certain perspective, rape may not be wrong. From a purely biological perspective, rape serves a purpose, it allows the male to reproduce his genetic quality.

However, from a social and intellectual perspective, we can conclude that rape is wrong.

The problem with moral relavism, and the reason it is bogus, is it says that those two positions are equally correct. That is the mistake. From a purely biological perspective, rape is not right or wrong. However, when you put biological quality in conflict with the social order and the intellectual order, they are MORE moral positions.

Again, the idea that both positions are equally right is bogus.

 

[Makalakumu]

The irony is that a more moral level has the ability to overcome the level immediately below it.

If you are defining morality as "better adapted" then I agree. However, this is not moral absolutism and it still is a form of relativism in the sense that because of different contexts, what is right in one society may not be right in another.

 

[Makalakumu]

Again, this is a mistake to believe that one cannot determine right from wrong beyond cultural context. Again, this leads to the intellectual error that says that all cultures are equal. Even though one cannot remove themselves from the context of society, one can, from an intellectual level, examine that which serves social quality versus biological, for example.

There are numerous problems with this argument. First off, it is impossible to objectively remove oneself from their cultural context. Any sociologist will tell you this. Second, my position in this debate is not that all cultures are equal. It is that morality is relative to a physical and structural context. I believe that as circumstances change, ideas go out of date and need an upgrade or the culture won't survive. This idea explains both why certain moral ideas tend to spread so quickly and why people grow up in different contexts can sometimes believe vastly different things about what is right and wrong.

Yes, because they have achieved greater social quality. The more complex societies get, the more they embrace ideology over social groups. That we even have nations, outside of familial clans, is evidence of greater social quality.

I think our positions in this discussion are very close...for a change

Again, you make a mistake. It does come from somewhere. It is a quality present in human societies. Name one human society where there are no laws or social rules, even if they somtimes very. I'll save you time, you can't. Why? Because social rules are an inherent quality of ALL societies.

I would never suggest otherwise. I think that you missed the point I was trying to make.

Why are rules necessary? To overcome biological quality of the individual. Those who have excessive biological quality must either yield to the group, die, be imprisoned, or (in some primitive groups) fight to the top position. But, even in those societies, there is only one top position. As time goes by, even those socieities decide it is advantageous to develop a system of advancement more based on ritual than combat.

Have you read Sociobiology by EO Wilson? I think you would be interested in this book. In it Wilson postulates that social behavior is biology. There is no separation. Both evolve together and both change over time in response to environmental changes...which, with social behavior, includes structural changes.

What's more, the more advanced a society gets, the more it creates complex rules and social controls for those who exhibit excessive biological quality.

Just as with biological evolution, cultural evolution has its ornamentations. Complexity is determined by greater amounts of competion, nothing more. Environmental pressure forces human behavior to explore every available niche. This is another tidbit from Sociobiology.

So, we can say that one universial quality of ALL societies are social rules. There are more, but this is enough to make my point. If we accept that obvious truth, we acknowledge that there is a foundation for a universal system of morality, not based on divine truths, but based on the natural progression of human societies.

Social rules are not just a product of human societies. Animal societies also have them. Further, the sheer diversity of social rules does not support any general patterns other then that the rules develop in response to environmental pressures. This DOES NOT provide ANY foundation for universal morality.

 

[sgtmac_46]

If you are defining morality as "better adapted" then I agree. However, this is not moral absolutism and it still is a form of relativism in the sense that because of different contexts, what is right in one society may not be right in another.

What I dispute is the idea that it is impossible to determine what is right and wrong in a given situation.

 

[sgtmac_46]

There are numerous problems with this argument. First off, it is impossible to objectively remove oneself from their cultural context. Any sociologist will tell you this. Second, my position in this debate is not that all cultures are equal. It is that morality is relative to a physical and structural context. I believe that as circumstances change, ideas go out of date and need an upgrade or the culture won't survive. This idea explains both why certain moral ideas tend to spread so quickly and why people grow up in different contexts can sometimes believe vastly different things about what is right and wrong.

Oh, I agree that people in different contexts will believe different things about right and wrong. What I dispute is the idea that both are equally right or wrong. I believe it is possible to determine which one is right in a given situation.

I think our positions in this discussion are very close...for a change

Oh, I don't know. We aren't always that far off. I simply make discernments between situations that are biology versus social and intellectual versus social. I feel you usually take an intellectual position on most things against the social level of quality. I simply disagree when you take biology's side against the social level.

I would never suggest otherwise. I think that you missed the point I was trying to make.

No, I get your point. I simply want to put a very fine point of distinction there.

Have you read Sociobiology by EO Wilson? I think you would be interested in this book. In it Wilson postulates that social behavior is biology. There is no separation. Both evolve together and both change over time in response to environmental changes...which, with social behavior, includes structural changes.

That is Pirsigs view as well. However, he asserts that, as socities first evolve to serve the individual, they eventually developed beyond the individual, as an end unto themselves.

What's more, intellect was eventually a development of societies. Eventually, however, we began to pursue intellect as a end to itself. That's why the first steps to build irrigations to help produce crops, gave way to philosophy. Each ratchet step up, becomes and end to itself.

Society is biology in the sense that biology is the foundation which it is built on. Just as biology itself is built on the inorganic.

Just as with biological evolution, cultural evolution has its ornamentations. Complexity is determined by greater amounts of competion, nothing more. Environmental pressure forces human behavior to explore every available niche. This is another tidbit from Sociobiology.

This is why i've come to the conclusion that different scientific fields of study only get little pieces of the puzzle. They're all blind men feeling the elephant, so to speak. I prefer a holistic interpretation.

Social rules are not just a product of human societies. Animal societies also have them. Further, the sheer diversity of social rules does not support any general patterns other then that the rules develop in response to environmental pressures. This DOES NOT provide ANY foundation for universal morality.

Actually, your statement only strengthens my argument...that social rules are a quality of all social groups, including animals, and they develop, initial, for biological reasons. Eventually, however, they become an end unto themselves.

For example, you can explain to me how, through social biology, a social group develops. But you can't tell me how a social group develops to produce a constitution. That requires a much more diverse holistic field of study. Your problem is that you attempt to interpret, piecemeal, referring to social biology as telling us how this occurs, and referring to anthropology about how that occurs. Again, however, the reality is that they are only getting small pieces of what is actually occurring.

 

[Makalakumu]

What I dispute is the idea that it is impossible to determine what is right and wrong in a given situation.

I would dispute this also, however, I think that the point of distinction between our positions is that I believe it is possible to determine right and wrong within a given context and you believe that it is possible to determine right and wrong in any context. Before I continue, could you clarify this?

 

[Makalakumu]

Actually, your statement only strengthens my argument...that social rules are a quality of all social groups, including animals, and they develop, initial, for biological reasons. Eventually, however, they become an end unto themselves.

This may be true, but it still does not provide any basis for universal morality. If anything, the diversity of the ends unto themselves argues against an absolute standard.

For example, you can explain to me how, through social biology, a social group develops. But you can't tell me how a social group develops to produce a constitution.

Certain environmental and structural factors interacted and the morality of our constitution became possible. These structural and environmental factors interactions did not occur in other areas, thus they developed a different morality. This, again, does not argue for an absolute standard of morality.

 

[Floating Egg]

We can conclude that rape is wrong from a social and intellectual perspective, but the point of contention here seems to be whether moral principles are intrinsically valid.

 

[sgtmac_46]

We can conclude that rape is wrong from a social and intellectual perspective, but the point of contention here seems to be whether moral principles are intrinsically valid.

Again, that was the argument of Pirsig. I find his argument compelling, though there are those who disagree. Not being in the intellectual league with Pirsig, or, indeed, most of the other theorists on this topic, I am a poor substitute.

However, I feel, even in a cold universe devoid of absolute morality, a construct like Pirsigs theories of evolved hiearchy of morals provides the best framework available for human kind to apply...if it wishes to advance as a species. I feel it provides a guideline by which we may measure given conflicting moral questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_of_Quality
http://www.ldb.org/pirsig.htm

And, of course, no study of the Pirsig would be complete without William James.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James

 

[Floating Egg]

sgtmac_46,

We seem to be in agreement concerning the utility of a framework, unless I’ve made a glaring error in my reading of your posts.

 

[sgtmac_46]

sgtmac_46,

We seem to be in agreement concerning the utility of a framework, unless I’ve made a glaring error in my reading of your posts.

No, you are correct.

 

[arnisador]

I find what sgtmac_46 has written very interesting. I am familiar with the work of William James but though I know of Zen and..., I have never read it. The problem arises, however, that Osama bin Laden is surely confident that he is acting from the highest, most evolved social consciousness, to bring about a better world...how can we agree on what is a more 'evolved' morality? I fear we'll just do what every culture has always done, which is to declare that they are civilized and those who came before were barbarians. As a model of what has happened, I see some value in it, but as a way to decide if we are right and others are wrong...I don't see how it helps. Can it tell me whether we or Europe are right on the death penalty issue?

The sociobiology or evolutionary psychology approach explains why we do what we do, but not whether what we do is 'right' unless one adopts the axiom that what is 'natural' is necessarily moral. (It also sheds some light on the 'are children born knowing how to lie' issue.) I find it very useful when thinking of these issues, but as Richard Dawkins says, we betray our genes' desires every time we use contraception. We can't take evolved instincts and patterns of behaviour as a full guide. What has evolved was adaptive, presumably--or in some cases, a side-effect of some other adaptation--but is adpative the same as right?

I think the key questions were well put here:

In essence, you are claiming that a certain standard is universal. Therefore, here are my questions...

1. Where is this standard?
2. Why doesn't everyone follow this standard if it does exist?
3. What happens if a culture does not follow this standard of right and wrong?

 

[arnisador]

The debate over how to define culture is ongoing within the Anthropological community. John H. Bodly, in his is textbook Cultural Anthropology, defines culture in the following way:

"Culture involves at least three components: what people think, what they do, and the material products they produce. Thus, mental processes, beliefs, knowledge, and values are parts of culture. Some anthropologists would define culture entirely as mental rules guiding behavior, although often wide divergence exists between the acknowledged rules for correct behavior and what people actually do. Consequently, some researchers pay most attention to human behavior and its material products. Culture also has several properties: it is shared, learned, symbolic, transmitted cross-generationally, adaptive, and integrated."

This was a good post. I want to call attention in particular to the fact that culture is shared and learned.

In the second last paragraph of your first post, you stated that rape is wrong because it violates the rights of human beings. In what context is the violation of rights incorrect? Do you view rights as something that's inherent or granted?

Yes, we speak often of human rights, yet we see that Europe has condemned us for the execution of S.T. Williams. We are seen as human rights abusers in the U.S.! (Let's not even start on the issue of torture of prisoners of war.) Is there an agreed-upon notion of what rights a human has? Compare Sweden the U.S., and Saudi Arabia...we're nowhere close to that, unfortunately.

You've employed a False Dilemma by stating that raping a person is either wrong or right. Now, rape may not be desirable, but you're not discussing the principle of utility. The problem, as I see it, is your reliance on the words right and wrong to determine what humans ought to do, and this is one of the major sources of conflict in this thread.

I concur. The whole issue, who decides what is right and how? Given the wide disagreement over the issue of rights across the globe, whose standard do we use? What makes ours better, other than it's what we grew up with and are used to?

I do think that we have a more evolved level of morals now than we did before. But how to defend such a view? On what rock would such an argument stand?

 

[arnisador]

What I dispute is the idea that it is impossible to determine what is right and wrong in a given situation.

Can you describe a method for deciding whether or not it was right to exxecute S.T. Williams? Europe and the U.S. disagree. Thinking of William James, whom you mentioned, brings to mind C.S. Peirce...what method would make our ideas clear, and our arguments compelling, in this case?

There must be a method, a set of axioms, a calculus...or how can we decide what is right and what is wrong?

 

[Makalakumu]

I find what sgtmac_46 has written very interesting. I am familiar with the work of William James but though I know of Zen and..., I have never read it. The problem arises, however, that Osama bin Laden is surely confident that he is acting from the highest, most evolved social consciousness, to bring about a better world...how can we agree on what is a more 'evolved' morality? I fear we'll just do what every culture has always done, which is to declare that they are civilized and those who came before were barbarians. As a model of what has happened, I see some value in it, but as a way to decide if we are right and others are wrong...I don't see how it helps. Can it tell me whether we or Europe are right on the death penalty issue?

The biggest problem I have with using this approach is the lack of any explanation as why this framework makes any judgement on right and wrong. The fact that we are social creatures and that we have common social framework is nothing but a vessel. Masses of humans still decide what to put in that vessel. And usually the stuff that goes into the framework is stuff that is better adapted to the context of the environment and surrounding cultural structures. If one wants to make the argument that things that are better adapted to this context could be classified as good, I'm all ears.

The sociobiology or evolutionary psychology approach explains why we do what we do, but not whether what we do is 'right' unless one adopts the axiom that what is 'natural' is necessarily moral. (It also sheds some light on the 'are children born knowing how to lie' issue.) I find it very useful when thinking of these issues, but as Richard Dawkins says, we betray our genes' desires every time we use contraception. We can't take evolved instincts and patterns of behaviour as a full guide. What has evolved was adaptive, presumably--or in some cases, a side-effect of some other adaptation--but is adpative the same as right?

The biggest difference between biological evolution and cultural is that biological evolution follows Darwinian principles. Cultural follows Darwinian and Lamarckian principles. Ideas within a culture that help a culture succeed within its given context grow, while ideas that are maladaptive, die away. This is not natural selection.

 

[heretic888]

With all due respect to Pirsig, the notion of an evolved hierarchy of morality is hardly new. In fact, this seems to be a generally accepted paradigm in both philosophy and developmental psychology.

James Mark Baldwin, Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan, Clare Graves, Jean Gebser, and Jurgen Habermas all come to mind.

Furthermore, it is incorrect to postulate that a particular set of moral beliefs or moral values are intrinsically superior to another. Rather, it is the thinking and reasoning that underlies such phenomena that can lay claim to a greater cognitive validity.

Also, I would argue that both biological and cultural evolution operate by Baldwinian principles, as well.

Laterz.

 

[7starmantis]

When you say that rape is wrong regardless of what a culture's norms say, then you imply that there is a standard for wrong that exist outside of culture. In essence, you are claiming that a certain standard is universal. Therefore, here are my questions...

1. Where is this standard?
2. Why doesn't everyone follow this standard if it does exist?
3. What happens if a culture does not follow this standard of right and wrong?

1. It doesn't have to be written down anywhere, it doesn't have to exist anywhere. It is an absolute that doesn't need support of existence to be seen. Where is any absolute? Where is gravity? Is it only absolute because we have labeled it and defined it to our mental capacity? The standard exists in our abilities to evolve and the fact that our species is mutable means that we can change. However, that simple fact no more exludes absolutes as it does relativism. Change does not mean total change. Also, because a society changes doesn't mean what was left behind is either right or wrong. Those are simply not the determining factors. The standard is within our inherant need to evolve. If rape is not ultimately wrong, explain the need to evolve to a point of rejecting rape? On a biological level, it is heavily supported and extremely usefull for evolution of our species. If not raping someone is more usefull in our evolution then it must be wrong and is being evolved out. But that wouldn't fit with a relative view that rape is not wrong and is completely ok and acceptable in simply another culture. Why would we evolve past rape is rape is actually acceptable within a different group of people?

2. Are you asking why people committ crimes? You can look through history and find people who have allways followed this standard....you can also find people who have not followed this standard. Does either one prove anything in this discussion? Is right or correct or "good" only so because its followed? Is bad or wrong only so because its shuned? No, slavery was wrong, so we changed....if it was right, why the change? Lets get back to the victims rights. The victim of rape certainly does not accept the rape, so how do we progress and ignore her (or his) voice? The argument about the death penalty is moot here as it is an understanding of violating human rights for a specific reason and with cause and a purpose. Right or wrong is not the question here, the question is about murder. The one being put to death would have violated the human rights of an individual and thus according to our societal laws, we are then going to violate their's. I dont think anyone who supports the death penalty looks at is as not killing. If we were to really embrace relativism, our culture accepts capital punishment, so its has to be right.

3. Nothing happens. I'm not saying its wrong because the wrong action is follwed by something...or anything. Its simply wrong, regardless of follwing action, belief, or acceptance. Wrong isn't simply "wrong" because it contains punishment. Consequence doesnt determined the correctness or usefulness of action. Are crimes only cirmes when followed by punishment? Are people only criminals when caught and tried and found guilty? Or is committing the crime still wrong regardless of them "getting away with it"?

Perhaps, but there is learning needed for others to dislike it and when it comes to an "actual" definition of right and wrong...that is all that matters.

So all that makes things wrong is the learning others need to see it as so? Does a mother need to learn to feed her baby? Is feeding your baby wrong is some peple do not feed their babys? Your saying rape can be ok if a culure accepts it, and its only wrong because of our learned disgust for it....following that logic, wouldnt it only be right in the other culture because of their learned acceptance of it? So learned behavior is all that seperates right from wrong, good from bad, ok from not ok? Understanding only affects the one doing the understanding, it doesn't change the truth. Either rape is wrong or rape is right. The ability or purposefull following of said right or wrong doesn't change the truth of it.

Unless you can provide some sort of argument for a morality that trumps cultural norms, then "wrong" is wholly defined by a society.

Yet again, I'm not talking about morality. Morality is the accepted set of rules by which a group chooses to live. Morailty changes with culture. However, truth does not. Regardless of the groups acceptance of rape, or its label of "moral" or "immoral" the act of raping another human being is bad...wrong. Step outside your own box of understanding and usage of the word "wrong" Not wrong as in looked upon with disgust from other members of the society, but bad in that it should not be performed. There is a universal standard, that that is human rights. These are not relative as you say for that would mean slavery was never wrong. In which case Ray Jenkins was just out of his mind with the reparations argument eh? Or maybe we could discredit him by saying he was an absolutist :wink:
Slavery was either wrong then and still wrong, or right then and still right. If its wrong now, why was it not wrong then? If it wasn't wrong then, why has it been destroyed? One person can't just think up something, convince others to agree, and then that suddenly becomes right or wrong. Why is it we think we are so important or powerful to make what is right and wrong. We didn't make gravity, we just simply found it. I dont see anything to prove otherwise with these human rights issues. Do you honestly believe we have created human rights out of our own collective intelect? Why do (almost) newborn twins cry when the other is spanked or removed, or fed, or held? Their cognitive reasoning comes from somewhere and they haven't been trained to know that the other baby may get something I wont get, its inherant. In fact I think its as inherant and biological as thinking. Why do we think? We didn't learn to think or reason, we learn to use those tools, but not to learn how to actually do it. To deny inherancy altogether is to deny personality. We each have our own personality which is a collection of experiences, but is also unique when we are born. This goes to show that all is not learned, so absolutes must exist at some level, what level is the discussion at hand.

If you think about this comparison, it makes absolutely no sense. A child that grows up in a society that regularly rapes women will have a much higher propensity to rape then a child that grows up in a different society. In fact, one could expect most, if not all, to rape and rape again.

I'm sorry, that is completely false. I agreed that a child growing up in any social group has a tendancy towards that behavior, but to say one should expect one if not all to perform said action is completely absurd and in my opinion a bit bigoted. Do we expect children from the inner city, say 5th ward in Houston to kill people and do drugs again and again? No, absolutely not, we simply cannot expect such things of people...thats called labeling and discrimination. Do children growing up in those surroundings see those actions and sometimes follow those actions, yes. Does every child, or "all" follow that course, most assuredly no. Research some of the most respected people in our history and society and see where they came from, you might be surprised.

However, even so, what in the world does it have to do with their actions being right or wrong? You offer no proof of right and wrong changing with the thoughts of a societies members.

This all goes into semiotics as a theory of the mind. A child must be taught to misrepresent symbols. They must be taught to initiate a mis-take of a symbol. Many prominant psychologists have studied this. Perhaps Heretic888 will elaborate. He is actually studying this.

Again, this is not true. A child does not have to be taught to misrepresent symbols. Your right, many prominant psychologist have studied this, they seem to agree now as well.

The bottom line is that the definition of right and wrong while using reactions is faulty. Everyone will react differently to one action because of their cultural and social experiences. What I'm asking is how that makes one action ok and also not ok. What does the reaction by a society have to do with whether the action should or should not be performed? No one has really touched the rape issue in this way. Why is rape ok when done in a geographic location that normally accepts rape, but not ok when done in a geographical location that normally doesn't accept rape? What has changed apart from a willingness to accept said action? So then a willingness to accept action makes the rights and wrongs of our species? Its not a good idea to eat lots of poisonous plants, I need not be willing to accept that knowledge to die from the poison. I also need not accept the idea that rape violates a womans rights to refrain from raping or rape. No one has yet explained how simple acceptance makes the stealing of a young womans virginity against her very own will and forcing a sexual act...ok. That may be an emotional argument, but its not incorrect or faulty...emotional or not, its a serious situation and one that has yet to be explained as right.

7sm

 

[arnisador]

1. It doesn't have to be written down anywhere, it doesn't have to exist anywhere. It is an absolute

Why?

Your belief in it appears to be absolute. But it isn't clear why this is absolutely wrong. You keep asserting that it's an absolute. When asked to justify this claim, however, you turn the question back on the questioner (e.g., "If rape is not ultimately wrong, explain[...]"). That's no argument.

Those who say it's relative have an easier position to defend. You're asserting the existence of an absolute, whereas they assert the apparent lack of one. You need to be able to demonstrate your absolute by starting with "Look, we all agree that there are other sentient beings on this planet, with feelings more-or-less like or own, right?" and building an argument up from there. Just repeating that it's an absolute is not an argument. To say that the victim doesn't want to be assaulted is redundant--unwillingness to engage in the act is inherent in the very definition of rape. Saying it adds nothing to the discussion.

Animals commit acts that we could describe as rape. This may be anthropomorphic, but viewing just the act certainly makes it seem like this is what's happening. Are they doing something wrong? Yes, because the act is wrong? No, because they don't know right from wrong? If it's absolute, how broadly does it apply?

You say, in essence, that there's an absolute right not to be made a victim of an assault perpretrated by another. I agree that such an act is wrong...but not that it's wrong on grounds other than my electing to such a position axiomatically (or by applying reasoning like the Golden Rule or the Categorical Imperative, all equally axiomatic).

You still need to answer the question: Why is this an absolute right? Who grants these rights? If no one, where are they written (in the sense of made evident)? Gravity is evident in every falling rock. Where is this right made evident?