Subjective Morality?

[vulcanlogician]

That's a strange conflation of skill and moral correctness.  I'm fine saying Jordan is objectively good at basketball, because the rules define a context, and are not really debatable.  If there was only one set of moral ideas, we could say the same about rape, or about any other moral issue.

However, morality does not provide a single set context by which things can be judged right or wrong.  People, in thinking morally, establish many different contexts, many at odds with each other.  If there were a thousand different versions of basketball, it might be difficult indeed for me to demonstrate that Jordan was an excellent basketball player.

Why don't we all agree on the following: given a particular social context, it may be able to establish that some act or belief is objectively wrong by the rules of that social context?  But that, in general, morality more generally is a mediation among feelings, ideas, and environment?

No. Morality has nothing to do with feelings anymore than a theist's love of Jesus has anything to do with God's existence.

Look at it this way: if I say "rape is morally wrong." You could say one of three things:

1) That's just your opinion, Vulcan.

2) Your viewing rape as morally wrong isn't even an opinion. Rather, it is your emotional reaction to rape.

3) Rape is only wrong within the specific moral framework to which you subscribe.

I guess I should make room for:

4) Other (please explain thoroughly)

So when I say, "Rape is morally wrong"... what am I ACTUALLY saying, Bennyboy?