My views on objective morality

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

Sure. What if a rapist were convicted and as a punishment sentenced to be himself raped? Would that sentence be moral or immoral?

This means the act of rape is always immoral, regardless of circumstances.

That remains to be seen, depending on your answer to the above question. You don't get to simply claim that something is "objectively immoral" in arguing for objective morality. That is circular reasoning and unacceptable in this sort of argumentation.

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.

That is a good example of moral relativity, actually. The insane rapist is held to a different standard precisely because of his diminished capacity to apprehend the moral dimension of his act.

As for the definition of subjective, I'm on my phone right now and so cannot link easily, but I'd think a definition from, say, the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy would be more apt. I'll look it up and link when I get home tonight. Using general definitions in philosophical discussions is a good way to run aground around philosophers.

To answer your question, I believe it would still be immoral. 

Reading the rest of this, I can see that perhaps our disagreement stems more from semantics than anything else.