Subjective Morality?

[robvalue]

Earlier on we had the claim that rape is factually immoral (I’d argue that unethical should be used here, factually immoral is an oxymoron) because it is damaging to the victim and toxic to society.

There are a number of problems with such a claim, even if we let it go that "damage to individuals" and "societal health" have been inserted as factual ethical criteria. Before I start, it is my opinion that rape is unethical, by the standards of ethics I promote.

1) Societies take on many forms. Judging exactly what is good and bad for it as a whole is hardly a simple matter. Maybe in some societies it serves some kind of purpose, and its removal would upset things in a way that makes things worse overall. If we merely assert that it must be judged that any society is better without it, before hearing any specifics of a society, then we're making tautological statements, not ethical facts.

2) Socities change. Humans have changed, and will change. Will the effect of rape, upon both the individual and society, always be comparable to how it is now? I don’t think anyone can say that. So our "fact" is limited to a specific historical period / stage of human evolution.

Even after all this, we're left with a statement which most people (that we're likely to discuss such things with) would find such an obvious thing to say that it’s virtually pointless to try and argue it into fact. For it to be a fact that "rape is unethical", the ethical standard being used must be specified, and the fact is then specific to those standards. The only other thing to do is to claim that one particular set of standards is somehow superior. If anything, this is what should be the subject of what an "ethical fact" is, not a logical result of applying that standard.