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

[DeistPaladin]

[moral relativism] ...only means that the morality of an action is dependent on who is doing the deed, and who is doing the judging. An example is killing: if the killer is not a person acting under a certain set of circumstances, the killing is regarded as immoral. If the killing is under the color of law, it is said to be "justifiable" (meaning morally justifiable). Example: compare a soldier to a serial-killer. They both kill multiple people; the serial killer is put to death, while the soldier is given some medals and a pension.
...
This is a non sequitur. It may well be that the differing moralities have areas of overlap, some large, some small, which permit those who hold different moral values to still discuss those morals, and differences, coherently.

And even if they couldn't have that discussion, it doesn't demonstrate that morality is absolute.

Fair points and I now believe I was careless with my discussion of "moral relativism" and exactly what that term means. If you'll allow me to start again...

First off, can we agree on my definition of "objective" and "subjective". I do believe that the OP has conflated these terms with "universal" and "relative".

If so, we might be able to agree that morality is, by definition, a subjective matter. We can't measure morals the same way we do mass, velocity, temperature or financial currency. Morality isn't an object or an energy that can be studied in a science lab. It's a conceptual evaluation of our actions and motives. It belongs in the realm of philosophy.

Furthermore, the existence of a god that weighs in on morality, prescribing a code of moral values and judging our actions would not make morality any less subjective. Ergo, theistic leading questions along the lines of "see, and where do these morals come from?" don't score any points for them in their efforts to prove even a god, never mind their favorite one.

If we can put that behind us, on to your points...

The question of universal vs. relative is an interesting one and your soldier/murderer example has given me pause.

I would first say that aggressive war is now recognized as a war crime. When W Bush and Cheney led our nation and others into a war with Iraq, they became personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. I would argue the moral culpability lies with political leaders who launch aggressive wars rather than on the soldiers carrying them out. Whereas the serial killer is acting on their own accord and for different motives.

Then there is "justifiable" (defensive) war, say when fighting against an aggressor that has invaded your country or coming to the aid of a country that has been invaded. In this case, the moral culpability still lies with the political leaders that launched the aggressive war.

Motivation is also important in our evaluations of moral behavior. "Good" or "evil" imply a choice that was made. In the movie, "Terminator 2", Dr. Myles Bennett Dyson is the inventor of an AI breakthrough that ultimately led to the nuclear holocaust that destroyed human civilization and ended 3 billion lives. However, his motive was to make a breakthrough that would help society. He did not intend the consequences and so, I would argue, is innocent at least morally.

Getting back to the soldier and serial killer example, the motives are also different. A soldier might kill to protect his country. This is a different motive than a serial killer who murders for pleasure.

Let me also clarify what I meant in that last paragraph you quoted. I was sloppy in my communication.

Instead of rape, let's use an example of a practice where different societies disagree on its morality: female genital mutilation (on my mind since I heard an interview recently in the news about the practice).

To some societies, female genital mutilation is necessary for "sexual purity" and will ensure her passage into Heaven. To sane societies, it's a horrid and barbaric practice, utterly immoral.

Now, since my understanding of "moral relativism" may be shaky, can you clarify for me how a moral relativist would evaluate our disagreement. Would a moral relativist argue, as I suspect, that our disagreement is just a matter of opinion, that my evaluation that a screaming six year old girl being held down by four adults while a fifth takes a knife and hacks away at her genitals is a horridly immoral practice, is just my culture?

This gets back to my point that "not all subjective opinions are equal". In making a case against female genital mutilation, I would argue:
1. The concept of "sexual purity" in this context is pure woo.
2. There is no evidence for any god who requires it.
3. There is no evidence that her passage into Heaven will result.
4. The practice destroys her ability to enjoy sex, thereby reducing the joy in the universe, all for no reason.
5. The practice violates her sovereignty as she neither gave consent nor could she at her young age.
6. The practice inflicts pain and suffering, possibly death, for no reason.

The counter arguments would likely involve nothing more than religious assertions with no evidence to back them up. Therefore, I would argue that my assessment of the morality of female genital mutilation is a much stronger case than one they could make.

---

We don't call meteorology subjective just because there are some things weathermen can't plug into their spreadsheets.
...
Eh. By that test, meteorology is subjective.

I'll have to respond later but I've given the thumbs up to both counter posts to my own because this is an interesting discussion and both of you have given me things to think about.

You might like my follow up post to the one you're responding to. I tried to be a little more clear in my definitions of terms.

Perhaps my love of spreadsheets has to do with my training in business school. Anyway, I'll respond later when I can.