In wide and universally-recognized ideology it is possible to describe the violence as a negative practice which negatively affects the human well-being. Structurally and naturally, it may be physical, psychological, economical, sexual and spiritual violence. Indeed, the sexual violence refers to the practice of rape ??“ the sexual affair without agreement of the victim. From the ancient times, when only the first civil communities had built their cities and megalopolises, people relied on the simple moral and theological values: not to kill, not to rob or steal and so on. It is not a coincidence that these formal ethically-moral standards have been kept until nowadays and will be definitely functioning to the ends of humanity. The violence, in fact, is always considered as the breaking of universally-recognized moral standards, as well as the rape which is also the part of violence. However, today, in time of practical moral chaos, it is important to find out, whether the violence and rape are the absolute evil in our life or there could be some critical exceptions, when it is allowed to be involved in the violation of human moral rules and natural laws.
First, we should take apart the moral principles related to violence and its nature. The violence, in fact, is usually interpreted as an ???absolute evil???. In this sense, the denial of violence is a practically moral program that confronts with real life. The moralizing absolutism of violence, however, has the opposite reaction in our society today: there is a very small social response to the ideas of non-violence, for example (Bourke 7). The important truth is that all people in the world sin from time to time. It is possible to regret about this fact, but no one can change it. Following the pragmatical analysis, we can focus on objective and value-oriented definition of violence ??“ it is everything that connected with pain, suffering, murder, robbery and harm to other people. Such interpretation allows us to raise a question about the justifying of violence and possibility to use the violence in certain situations; however, it is lacking of criteria for solution of this question. In fact, there are no violences units of measurements; however, it is possible to assert that violence is justified in relatively slight sizes ??“ especially in situations, when the ???small violence??? prevents the development of ???big violence???. The thesis ???violence is always wrong??? has the dual nature: on the one hand, the violence against peaceful citizens is considered as wrong; however, when the violence is directed on the elimination of some terrorist group, the people justify such kind of practice.
Second, it is essential to distinguish the moral ideologies of violence and rape. While the violence, as a form of physical or psychological influence, can be justified in some very exclusive cases, the rape, as a form of sexual violence compulsion, cannot be justified from the ethically-moral principles of human being. For example, it is normal situation, when an individual kills the insane dog which suddenly attacks him on the street; or, occasionally kills an offender who definitely intends to stab a victim with a knife. It is a so-called ???defensive??? violence which prevents more grandiose negative events. The rape, in turn, does not have the justifying ???defensive??? mechanisms ??“ it has only an ???attacking??? nature (Cahill 21). From all ethical views and points, there are no preconditions to justify a pedophile or a rapist. The potential justifying of such crimes would dissolve and destroy the entire human basis of morality. Even the postulate ???rape against rape??? seems to be absolutely immoral and pointless. The actions of rapist rather refer to the deviation of psychic state than to the ideological motives.
Of course, there could be some opponents of such clear truth. According to them, thanks to the rape exactly the humanity made several steps of successful evolution (Lofton). However, it is important to underline that such ???natural processes??? were typical for ancient and pre-historic times, when the people fought for own lives and survival. In some sense, the compulsory coercion for the purpose of new generations breeding was actual and normal in those ancient historical periods, but not today. Nowadays, the rapists make the sexual crimes because of serious deviations in psychology, which exceeds any moral values of human life. The rape for them it is a motive to satisfy own perverted dreams and desires, to feel the power over the weaker victim, to compensate own psychological complexes that are manifested within normal moral environment. Therefore, the rape in modern time is the form of absolute antisocial destruction, and, considering the above-mentioned examples, there are no justifications into the favor of sexual violence.
Such an assumption is quite subjective and formal. It is formal, indeed, because it is known fact that any absolute ideals are absent in our real world. At the same time, any kind of violence occurs only as a reaction and response on provocation. If the woman becomes a victim of rapist, it means that she somehow provoked him to do it. But the main responsibility, anyway, is on the shoulders of offender. It is an absolute truth. The moral principles and intelligence are the core factors that make us humans. If the human does not retain own instincts and ignores the morality, he/she loses own human face, therefore, he/she turns into pre-historic ape. Even aside from definitions of ???right??? and ???wrong??? behavior, the one fact is evident: rape destructs the social and moral principles of humans, and cannot be justified in normal human community.
Bourke, Joanna. Rape: Sex, Violence, History. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint, 2002. Print.
Cahill, Ann. Rethinking Rape. New York, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001. Print.
Lofton, John. Evolution shows its true colors. Answer in Genesis. Retrieved from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v23/n4/rape. Web.