(March 14, 2016 at 6:20 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(March 13, 2016 at 7:38 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Sure. What if a rapist were convicted and as a punishment sentenced to be himself raped? Would that sentence be moral or immoral?
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.
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.
I don't think so. I think you're applying your subjective morals but insisting that they are objective without explaining why that is the case.