Atthet wrote:What's worse?
A grown man rapes a young girl, and impregnates her, and she is left spending a lifetime raising a child of a rapist?
A grown woman seduces a young man, divorces him, and he is left spending a lifetime rebuilding his wealth and fortune of hardwork?
These seem like equal crimes, to me. How is this stupid slut, a whore, a golddigger, any different than a male rapist? Shouldn't she face a legal system, and charges against her, equivalent to a rape charge? Shouldn't seduction of men be a crime? Shouldn't seducing a man, be equivalent of a rape charge?
Let's push for a true "gender equality".
This is just too saturated with the flavor of "personal problems" to serve as a conduit to further discussion.
However, I think you are beginning to crack open this door slightly. You are seeing the truths inside only in a blurry way now, and it is coming out of you initially in these emotional outbursts. Slowly over time you will solidify and clarify these points from what you have inferred. I believe you can rise at least up the ladder of reason to the maxim, and perhaps beyond.
In the future you may discover that in a pragmatic (real life) sense, all of morality can be reduced to a single maxim,
"That which promotes and protects the Mommy/Baby unit is good. That which reduces or threatens it is bad."
When it comes to the topic of philosophical ethics, the basic behavior pattern that is followed with a kind of religious ritual goes like so: The philosophers come to their forum, their chat room, their university classroom, their lecture hall. They conclude univocally that there is no such thing as objective morality. They conclude all assessments of what is "Good" is arbitrary, subjective and hence dismissible.
Then they get up from their chairs and go directly back into their local culture -- as if nothing had happened. All the quirky, bizarre, local pair-bonding rituals come to bear on their behavior. If they live in white, upper-middle American suburbia, then all the post-feminist talking points are all adhered to. Are they double-talking? Absolutely. Are they being hypocrites? Absolutely. Are they contradicting themselves? Absolutely.
You will find that their behavior speaks more to what they actually believe than anything they post on philosophy forums, or anything they publish in Philosophy Now!
magazine, or anything they write and submit as university papers. You will find this pragmatic behavior all points towards the maxim above. Hurting women and their children is already romanticized in the behavior of Italian Mobsters as depicted in Hollywood movies. So Gino and Tony lie, cheat, steal, murder competitors, engage in extortion with threats of violence. But that's all "business" right? The moment one of them touches a little boy's penis, he has crossed a line for which there is no justification.
They philosophize in grandiose displays of intellectual acumen. But when "rubber hits road" (so to speak) and they have to engage in action in the real world and make decisions in the real world, you will see them adhere directly to the maxim.
I think you are beginning to crack open this door slightly. You are seeing the truths inside only in a blurry way now, and it is coming out of you initially in these emotional outbursts. Slowly over time you will solidify and clarify these points from what you have inferred. I believe you can rise at least up the ladder of reason to the maxim, and perhaps beyond.