But people who pull out the "Aren't people who put themselves at risk responsible for the consequences?" argument ...
Stated this way, the flaw with this argument is obvious, because the answer is clearly "No," where the consequences derive from WRONGFUL ACTION by OTHERS. The full answer is "No, because the rapist was a free-willed human being who could have chosen not to violently transgress the rights of another."
Note that this applies to more than rape, and more than victimhood. It also applies to situations in which the victim was robbed or murdered, and it also applies to situations in which the prospective victim avoided victimization by means of successful self-defense.
The general moral rule, and (often but not often enough for the sake of justice) legal rule is that he who first significantly breaches the peace is responsible for the consequences. An example of this is that if a gang of armed robbers attack a convenience store and one of them is shot dead, the others are guilty of murder even though it was the store owner who fired the shots.
no subject
Stated this way, the flaw with this argument is obvious, because the answer is clearly "No," where the consequences derive from WRONGFUL ACTION by OTHERS. The full answer is "No, because the rapist was a free-willed human being who could have chosen not to violently transgress the rights of another."
Note that this applies to more than rape, and more than victimhood. It also applies to situations in which the victim was robbed or murdered, and it also applies to situations in which the prospective victim avoided victimization by means of successful self-defense.
The general moral rule, and (often but not often enough for the sake of justice) legal rule is that he who first significantly breaches the peace is responsible for the consequences. An example of this is that if a gang of armed robbers attack a convenience store and one of them is shot dead, the others are guilty of murder even though it was the store owner who fired the shots.