Christians celebrate rape, torture, slavery and genocide.

[Darkstar]

Can you provide another method that is better, and a rational reasoning as to why?

Of course not, as it's subjective. Note that you haven't rationally shown utilitarianism to be better than other systems. you can try, but your justifications will at some point include subjective components.

Yeah, at some point. Some objectivity and some subjectivity is more reliable than pure subjectivity, no?

---

You bring up an interesting point. Morals evolved to help groups survive, but in the distant past, groups were relatively small and didn't inclue outsiders. This much is still true to an extent today, but is beginning to become less so. At what point can we simply accept other people as human beings and get past our 'outsider' prejudice?

When there are no differences among us I suppose, i.e. probably never.

---

Unfortunately you are probably right; to an extent. There will always be differences, but at least we should try to focus on what can be agreed upon, and perhaps reason more points to agree upon, though this would take a very long time and, as you said, may never be realized (at least not in the forseeable future).

But to take this little gem semi-seriously, it isn't the proclamation that one's opinion is correct that is troubling, but the failure to follow through with a compelling reason that it is correct.

If you have a compelling reason that a position is correct, then it's not an opinion. Challenging someone to prove that their opinion is correct is just a display of your own ignorance.

I don't think that moral judgements like "rape (by today's standards) is wrong" are simply an opinions. Sure, someone can disagree, but someone can disagree with facts as well. Unless, or course, you can demonstrate that the pleasure derived by the rapist is adequete justification for the suffering of the victim. (you can't)

Maybe, but would it be right?

It would be subjective, like your current position.

Suffering unnecesarily is generally bad; can we agree on this first point?

No, it's too vague. Be more specific, and consider that I'll ask about your own life to see if your position is ad hoc.

I meant it to be vague so that it would be more encompassing, but I'll give you a specific example. If someone is ill and suffering tremendous pain, which can be relieved by a [safe] painkiller, would you not be obligated to allow them to have the painkiller, or could it be viewed as moral to refuse it to them even though they could afford it and begged for it?