Subjective Morality?

[DLJ]

...
 The question being asked (by moral realism, in contrast to moral subjectivism, lol) is not whether you have an opinion...but whether some x causes that opinion, or whether the opinion causes some x.  That's the ground floor.  Does it purport to report facts.

So, one is D>I>K>W (facts to opinion) and the other is W>K>I>D (opinion to facts).



Or, to add the governance mantra of (governance is about "doing things right and doing the right things")



The scientific method is an example of the former (DIKW); folklore, religion, a heuristic (if it seeks substantiation at all) is the latter (WKID).

In truth we, humans, are adapted to use both in feedback loops.

Morals align to the data and information layers because they are about sensory data and classification of that data; they require competence but not necessarily comprehension; ethics (descriptive ('is') and normative ('ought') respectively) aligns to the knowledge and wisdom layers.
Governance (decision making) uses all layers and depends upon a few other enablers too.  It requires comprehension (even if that comprehension is faulty e.g. religion).

...
What about rape would make it wrong?
...

Here's a weird thing about Deontology, Consequentialism and Virtue Ethics:
- Nothing wrong with rape using the deontological model if those are rules/duties... think Conan or Dothraki or the Vikings... same for Divine Command Theory.  
- Nothing wrong with rape using the consequentialist model if one values human existence... none of us would be alive today if there had never been a rape sometime in the last 300,000 years.
- Nothing wrong with rape using the virtue model, in fact it might even be regarded as a virtuous self-sacrifice, to be raped to atone for the rape of another person from a different tribe.

... and catholic priests... say no more.




-