Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[The Architect Of Fate]

I don't know where you got this definition from. You have divine command theory in the literature, you know. This theory is considered absolutist, given that, as I said before, scripture is unchanging and eternal.

Yes, ofc divine command theory exists.  It's an explicitly subjectivist moral theory.  That right and wrong are determined by some subjects edicts.  

The matter of god suddenly intervening and changing rape from bad to good just doesn't happen, think of that as an empirical fact of some type. It's just like saying why should one trust gravity when in any second an alien supernatural entity can switch the gravity button off. Or why should I cross the road if traffic lights are green/no traffic considering the possibility of an invisible bus accelerating at 200 mph while I'm crossing. These are all empty hypothetical scenarios, what we really have is an unchanging scripture that instructs one not to rape, how hard can that be?

If something is wrong and unchanging, it will always be wrong.  

I agree there might be a "bad-making property" about rape that makes it inherently repugnant/immoral, but it's a very basic example. And there philosophical positions that rationalize that too, such as the utilitarian one I just mentioned. If moral realism is solid regarding rape, I don't see how it would work in less obvious cases.

The same as any other rational statement works in any case.  

I already said that these so called moral facts, aside from obvious issues such as rape, do beg the question. Why would anything have an objective moral tag? Even in the case of rape, I would say that, with stone cold rigor, it would be hard to squeeze a bad making property out of the act, if the rapist sadly silences the victim and prevents any manifestation of pain/discomfort, or even make the experience consensual/pleasant with some doses of drugs, nothing at the scene tells there is something bad happening.

Yes, I know you said that.  You can reject moral facts if you like - I'm not trying to convince you that they exist.  If you do reject moral facts, though, you can't avail yourself of them.  Things have objective tags™ to differentiate them from the subjective.  Both realism and subjectivism are cognitivist theories...they differ only in what set of true propositions are morally relevant.  

Do you think that it might be the case that you're hard pressed to state any bad-making property of rape on account of your own ignorance?  Ignorance about rape or about bad-making properties?  Or is this just preening..and in point of actual fact, in mere reality, it;s not hard for you to think of bad-making properties to rape at all?  

It's bad because it's .. infidel I think? Regarding facts, I wouldn't go farther than the husband's reaction when he catches his partner in the act, and how simple his moral system suddenly becomes when witnessing the tragedy unfold.

This only poses a restatement of the question.  If fidelity is implicitly good and infidelity..implicitly bad...why is fidelity good?  Again, any fact that you might refer to? Above, you refer to consequences surrounding the partners mental state.  Infidelity is bad because it hurts people.  Harm, here again.  If infidelity didn't harm the partner...say in the case of a healthy open marriage - then it would lack that bad-making property.  It wouldn't be wrong.

Springer's conditions might actually be met in the future, namely regarding the issue of eugenics. If the world population really reaches unbearable levels, we might see utilitarian policies enforced to reduce the useless portions of populations, the ultimate goal being the greater good.

We may.  

So if one finds the slightest trouble dismissing Springer's arguments in his moral system, he might as well just toss the whole system.

Why?  The accuracy of a moral proposition isn't determined by how much a person wants to avoid the consequences of that proposition.  This is a basic logical fallacy.  Things are not made false by how much we want to avoid their truth.  I'm not exactly itching to go all sophie's choice on the world..but we may one day find ourselves facing this moral dilemma, as we both agree above.  Here again I want to restate that some people already do (and countless more who already have and are long since dead).

In that event, and simply assuming that the argument is solid for sake of conversation..I'd invoke a fundamental and inalienable right of all moral agents.  The ability to be wrong, to fail.  To refuse to do the right thing, by that metric.  Do we really disagree here?  It's possible that there are good and right™ things to do that you and I could never do..right?  Your silly god told abraham to kill his son...for the sake of argument, assume that killing isaac would have been the right thing to do, since gods say so is the good-making property.  I still couldn't do it.  I would refuse to kill my son no matter who asked.  I would refuse to kill my son even if he were some cartoon villain literally worthy of death.  It will always be a bad bet..to bet on me..killing my son.  Are there things you wouldn;t do even if god told you not to..or does this order following mentality of yours have no floor?

Are you one bad plate of shrimp away from skullfucking your neighbors' kids and imagining that you'd done a good thing?

Following orders may not be a sound moral system per se, but I think it's a starting point regarding the really obvious issues : unlawful killing, rape, etc. I don't think ruling out unlawful killing should be based on any moral system that could be brought in question, the don't kill imperative is more than enough, at it squares well with our inherent moral sense.

It's not that it's not a sound moral system, it's not a moral system at all.  Following orders..is just following orders.  Those orders may be moral, or they may be immoral.  You keep talking about an innate moral sense....but if you had one, you wouldn't need orders as a starting point.

I don't need them at all.

Obedience isn't morality