Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

When I say rape is wrong (and I do), I recognize it as a shorthand: I don't like rape due to my feelings, and I know that the majority of people in my social environment don't like rape due to their feelings, and so we say it's wrong.  We have a social contract to stand against it, and to punish those caught doing it.

Another subjective appraisal.  You don't like rpe due to your feelings, and other people don't like rape..so, wrong.  I'm still wondering, though..if there's anything about rape that makes it wrong, in your opinion?  Not you and your feels.  Rape.  

But what's the difference between sex, which most people consider good, and rape, which most people do not?  It's a complex history of ideas about rights, freedoms, responsibilities, and so on.  Essentially, it's a narrative.  It's much more about the sense of identity, of personal power, and so on than about anything that I'd call objective.

What would happen if a man raped his dog?  The dog would squirm around, might be kind of confused.  He might be sore for a couple of days.  But I doubt he'd live out a life of insecurity, PTSD, etc.  That's because he's not capable of establishing a narrative in which sex is related to self esteem, and where the wrong kind of sex will disillusion him forever.  In essence, you'd have to argue that one's entire world view is objective, which to me is a broken semantic.

Well, we do try to make our worldviews objective..but, no, moral realism satisfies itself with a tiny slice.  In any case, "what would happen to the victim" is the beginning of an objective attempt through consequentialism.