My views on objective morality

[Mr.wizard]

No. A subject can have valid reasons for disagreeing with your moral sensibilities. Both sensibilities might each pertain in different situations or with different actors. If you're looking for pat answers in such a complex subject, I'm afraid I can't help you much.

I googled definition of subjective and this is what I got: 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=ch...definition

^That's what I have in mind when I say subjective morality. Basically that morality is just matter of opinion, personal feelings, and taste. Of which there can be no concrete right or wrong. 

You and I agree that generally, bashing someone in the face is not very moral. However, the immorality of an act can be mitigated or even negated by the circumstances around the event.

That is the essence of the claim that morality is both subjective and relative.

Well bashing someone in the face is not a good example because it is not something that we claim is objectively immoral in the fist place. There can be fine reasons for bashing someone in the face... like in self defense. So you are right, the morality of bashing someone in the face depends on circumstances surrounding the event.  

So let's stick to rape, which is an act that we claim to be objectively immoral. This means the act of rape is always immoral, regardless of circumstances. The only thing that changes here is the culpability of the rapist. A rapist who is legitimately insane and was having a psychotic episode has less culpability than one who premeditated the rape and is perfectly mentally capable of controlling what he's doing. Does this mean one rape was moral and the other wasn't? No, they were both immoral. The culpability of the rapist is the only thing that changes.

Even if every person agreed rape is evil it does not make it objective, an objective moral would have to exist independent of human minds. Meaning you would have to prove that the concept of rape would exist and be wrong even if humans didn't exist.