[SPLIT from Sexual Lifestlyles] Nietzsche and moral facts

[Breedingvariety]

Accepting something as truth determines good and bad. Bad doesn't necessarily mean evil.

There are no "non-moral standpoints" in a debate as concerns Morality. Denying that Morality has existence of any kind and/or posing a hypothetical scenario in which rape may not be morally wrong as Morality is but a fiction, negates your argument insofar as all action aginst an existing moral schema transmogrify that Morality as it is Phenomenologically. Ergo, one may say that one refuses acceptance of the dilemma by stating that there is no dilemma; but, one must enter the dilemma to reject it.

Rejecting statement "rape is bad" means there is different truth behind morality, that regards rape as insignificant to morality determined by accepted truth. The dilemma is not of morality vs. no morality. It's dilemma of morality that considers rape bad vs. morality that considers rape insignificant.

Please illuminate the 'grey area' of rape. I do not think that you can.

I'll just hint rape could be strategy of specie reproduction. If survival of specie is good, then rape is good. That's not my view. That's just an example of morality where rape is not just grey, but light.

Moral facts exist in the moral interpretations of phenomena, whilst simultaneously not existing as phenomena in themselves.

There is no moral interpretations of phenomena different with interpretations of phenomena. All interpretations determine morality. But what good and bad is in one interpretation can be non issue in other and vice versa.

[Lutiferre]

I'd also like to note that a moral interpretation doesn't have to be built on a "social contract" or on any social premises/compromises; it can be built on a reevaluation of other-wise accepted values.

[SuuT]

rape could be strategy of specie reproduction. If survival of specie is good, then rape is good. That's not my view. That's just an example of morality where rape is not just grey, but light.

Rape as a reproductive strategy in proto-moral space-time must be viewed in light of exactly that space-time.

Perhaps there is some percentage of today's rapists whose drive to rape is an atavistic appearance of archaic reproductive strategy. However, as Morality is a process of self-censure and refinement, many would agree that flowers and chocolates and sweet words work a lot better in the moral now.

I should note, here, that such a phenomenon (rape as reproductive strategy) could re-appear in post-moral space-time (in instances in which Man is more animal than the moral animal).

I'd also like to note that a moral interpretation doesn't have to be built on a "social contract" or on any social premises/compromises; it can be built on a reevaluation of other-wise accepted values.

The process is certainly dynamic. I imagine one would have to have a time machine and be privy to the anagenesis and ethnogenesis of a people to know what is the chicken, and what is the egg.