Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

If someone is trying to rape you, you can stab them in the face, and that would not be wrong in my opinion.  Stabbing someone in the face certainly qualifies as causing harm.  So you'd at a minimum have to sharpen up the idea of 'doing harm'.

That would be an issue of competing moral imperatives.  OFC it's not wrong to stab someone in the face for trying to rape you, if that;s what you have to do to stop someone from raping you.  No one faults -some- terrible things a person might do in defense of themselves.  An objective assessment of the harm caused, in that case, is actually -required- in order to reach a justifiable moral pronouncement on both the attacker...and the defender.

Stab them, wally.  Stab the shit out of them.  But...if that stops them from raping you....don't...then...cut them up into little pieces and serve them as a pie to their family.   Objectively justifiable defense of one's self only goes so far.

Further..one could argue that you have an objective moral -duty- to stab them in the face.......since, if you can defend yourself, and choose not to, you have not only failed to satisfy what would be moral for yourself.....you have failed to do what might stop them from doing it to some other.

I think I agree.... to take a simple principle and make it absolute no matter what is.... well and oversimplification. 
I don't know that I share in your experience, but I don't think that morality is based on or dependent on the subject.  And most people do not act as if it is.

Right, because you're a moral absolutist (or at least you think you are).  I, however, am a moral objectivist, so I acknowledge that it -does- depend,...objectively, on the subject, the time, the place, the culture. We all act that way (even you) because both moral and subjective moral assessments equally depend on all of those things. You haven't picked up a gun in defense of the fetus, of late.....now have you....?

(please don't, btw)