Atheists only vote please: Do absolute MORAL truths exist? Is Rape ALWAYS "wrong"?

[DeistPaladin]

I haven't read this whole thread yet but I've come across this part which indicates you may have two different things confused with each other:

How would one go on to defend "subjective morality", by providing an instance where rape is "good", and "not the wrong thing to do"? If morality is subjective, entire cultures could deem rape as acceptable or even "good". Are they wrong, or is the "wrongness" of rape then only determined by the number of people who believe it to be wrong? Is there no higher law than our own opinion on the matter, or is there something bigger than the world, that makes it wrong despite society's opinion? Are the people who regard it as acceptable, simply "wrong"?

You seem to have "subjective morality" confused with "relativistic morality".

This is an important distinction. I believe that morality is subjective but NOT relative.

The distinction is based on the understanding that not all subjective opinions are equal. Some have more objective data to support them. Some have more internal consistency. Some are better supported by logical arguments. These opinions are stronger than ones that are just based on the bare assertions of opposing opinions.

If this were not so, all trials would end in hung juries because "gee whiz, the prosecution says 'guilty' and the defense says 'not guilty' and who can really say who's opinion is more valid?"

For example:
Once I hired this guy as a sales person. At his 90 day review, I fired him. He felt he was a "good sales person" while I did not. We both had different subjective opinions here. But my opinion was supported by the objective data of zero new clients, zero cross-sales to existing clients and zero recovered lost accounts. Hence, my subjective evaluation was supported by objective data while his was simply based on his bare assertions to the contrary.

"Moral Relativism" is the idea that not only is there no objective moral truths (whatever that even is supposed to mean) but that there are no moral claims that can be made at all, that all ideas of right and wrong are just opinions. This philosophy only makes sense if you also subscribe to "solipsism", the idea that reality itself is up for grabs and that all knowledge is just opinion.

Moral claims, while subjective in nature, can be supported by logical arguments, judged by internal consistency and validated by objective reality. What damage is done? What are the short term and long term consequences? Is there a victim? Would you want something done to you as it was done to the victim?

Morality can't be plugged into a spread sheet. We can't do the "number crunching" to determine what is right and wrong. There are no units of measure for morality as there are for temperature, distance, mass and velocity. Morality is not a substance. It can't be measured like matter or energy. Therefore morality is not objective.

Morality involves evaluation. We use words like "moral judgment" which indicate that we understand it is subjective. Subjective, by definition, is not free from an individual's judgment, opinion or evaluation. It is the domain of philosophy, not science. Therefore, morality is subjective.

There are consequences to our actions. There are real effects that we can objectively measure. Therefore, we can philosophically discuss morality in a coherent way. Therefore, morality is not relative.

Hope this helps.