| |
|
We have to make a decision about this thread. Either we conclude that the premise is so moronic, so fatuous and so jejune that it cannot possibly be discussed, in which case we move it to the Conversation, or we decide that, no matter how badly begun or expressed, there is a possible discussion here, and we have it. I'm easy either way.
(Those of you new to the Head Shop, please read the FAQ)
Spyder has already complicated his point, such as it is, rather, by admitting that *in general*, rape might not be as bad as murder, because murder is more generally upsetting - the victim may not feel so bad about it, but those around hir will feel worse. His position is that nonetheless it is better to be dead than traumatised. You'd rather be dead in a box than alive in a box, essentially. Is this the case? Lord knows. Perhaps it is a matter of taste. It also assumes that the dead have no feelings, of course, and that the feelings in the short period between being stabbed, say, and death are less valid as feelings for reasons of duration or b) other, than feelings in the long interlude between being raped and death. It's all ultimately death.
Also, there is the question of whether the victim's feelings, or the victim's family's feelings, are relevant to the consideration, and if so how. For example, if one looks at accident compensation claims, the loss of both eyes is generally worth more in compensation than death, because it costs a lot more to support somebody through learning to deal with blindness than it takes to bury somebody. The emotional cost here is not calculated; the question is only what makes more of a mess, and how much effort it will take to clear it up.
So. Does rape or murder take more effort and time to "clean up after"? It's a ridiculous question, surely. Would you rather be dead than raped? Would you rather be dead than have your eyes put out? Again, to universalise seems rather difficult, not to say silly. Different people have different levels. Spyder's sense of physical integrity is constructed in such a way that he would rather have it violated by bullet or blade than sexually, and that is well and good as a personal taste, but it doesn't get us much further on Lurid's question of how one can judge in some sort of universalisable sense which is worse.
Of course, neither can the law. Some instances of homicide are not punished so heavily as some instances of rape; the context and circumstance - rather than the unending absolutes of "dead" and "traumatised" are taken into account. Whether they are weighted correctly is a different question, but possibly one worth looking at. |
|
|
