I think Daniel Johnson is going a little deeper than that in this piece.
Adam Wykes
1

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy:

Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another being (a human or non-human animal) is experiencing from within the other being’s frame of reference”

There is nothing in the piece about understanding or feeling what a rape victim goes through. On the contrary, Johnson specifically states:

“How grounded is my morality in the fact that it would adversely effect me vs the idea that this is on its own an act of unworthy aggression? The answer to that question blows a hole in each and every one of our conditions of morality.”

In other words, in so far as Johnson behaves as a moral being, that is only because he is afraid of the consequences for not doing so. Or, to the extent that this is not a piece about Johnson but about men in general, he thinks men only abstain from rape because they think they might get caught.

There is nothing implicit in my answer about innate good or evil. There is just the point that most of humanity has the ability of empathy, which allows for reasoning about what our actions do to others. And that in itself is enough, most of the time, to determine actions toward others.

Or, to put it differently: considering what it would be like for a person to be raped would put by far the majority of men off the topic of rape.

And that, specifically, is what is lacking from Johnsons piece: the perspective of the person wronged. Hence, there is no empathy, no human decency.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.