Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

As I've stated before, I accept as axiomatic the existence of other feeling agents.  Most moral ideas predate me, so they are based on other people's feelings.  But yes, the things I CONSIDER wrong I consider wrong either because of my own direct feelings about things, or ideas I've learned from others, maybe my family, but they were all predicated at some point on somebody's feelings.

I'm not saying that rape is intrinsically wrong, at all.  That's your view, not mine.  I've said that it (and all other mores) must be considered in the context of some philosophical positions.  Rape is wrong given philosophical ideas about liberty, harm, human rights, and so on.  But there's no objective reason why liberty should matter if you choose not to extend it, or why harm should be avoided, if you don't care about it.

There either is or isn't an objective reason to avoid harm...regardless of whether or not you care about it.  Just like someone objectively did or did not win the super bowl last year..even if you don't follow american football.

The latter is evidenced by the lack of vegetarianism.  We accept the killing of pigs for food, but not of people.  Sometimes, we pretend we're nice about it-- we kill the pig humanely.  It's a free-range pig who's lived its life with access to a waterslide park and fed Eggo Waffles every day, whatever.

We maintain that there is something relevant that is objectively different between ourselves and pigs.  We may be wrong about this..but if we were..we would be objectively wrong, and so that purported difference would not yield the conclusion that we now arrive at.  

You might wanna hold the line on us not accepting the killing of human beings for food, btw. There may actually be some factual state of affairs where we do. I'm not there, you're not there, but it's at least possible that somebody might find themselves in that position and have the presence of mind to offer a valid and objective argument for the moral permissibility (or even necessity) of killing and eating people.

Or consider rape.  What's the difference between rape of a human woman, and the artificial insemination of the cow?  Do the farmers attempt to ascertain whether a particular cow would be welcoming of advances from a particular bull?  Isn't this bovine rape objectively wrong, also, since it's a violation of the cow's wish not to have a large plastic tube inserted into its vagina?  Is "It's not human, so it can be property" an objective moral fact?

IDK, is bovine rape objectively wrong, you're asking questions that would determine it to be (or not be) so..objectively.

Even in your objections..and throughout the entirety of this thread, you have assumed the semantics of objectivism. This is because you, like any moral realist, believe in facts..and believe that those facts are informative.